In a thought-provoking statement, a former Supreme Court judge has sparked a debate on the balance between transparency and fairness in the court system. According to the judge, it is the psychiatrists providing evidence for mental health suppression orders who pose the biggest threat to transparency, rather than the judges themselves. This statement comes in the wake of a report warning of a 'crisis' in open justice, which highlighted the prolific use of suppression orders and its impact on court reporting. The report, commissioned by the Melbourne Press Club, judged Victoria's court system to be the least transparent in Australia, prompting a call for an overhaul of the state's Open Courts Act. The Attorney-General, Sonya Kilkenny, acknowledged the need for a balance between an open court system and a person's right to a fair trial, but stopped short of addressing whether the legislation itself needed to be reviewed. The former judge, Betty King, KC, suggested that psychiatrists' untested reports, which often lead to suppression orders, should be subject to scrutiny in court. She argued that some psychiatrists abuse the system, and their reports, along with the legislation, should be tested in court. King also defended the broader use of suppression orders as necessary to ensure the fairness of the justice system and avoid mistrials. She referred to herself as the 'Queen of suppression orders' and presided over the trial of slain underworld boss Carl Williams. However, the Chief Magistrate, Lisa Hannan, County Court Chief Judge Amanda Chambers, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Niall declined to contribute to the research, and no current judge accepted an invitation to speak at a Melbourne Press Club event where the report was launched. The Monash study, based on interviews with working journalists, called for urgent steps to repair the fractured relationship between judges and journalists who report from their courts. The study's findings have sparked a debate on the balance between transparency and fairness in the court system, and the role of psychiatrists in providing evidence for mental health suppression orders. The controversy surrounding the report and the judge's statement invites readers to share their thoughts and opinions in the comments section.
