About Gary Johnston 64 Articles
Gary Johnston is an author, academic and former parole officer with decades of experience in the criminal justice system. He is True Crime News Weekly's Deputy Editor and Melbourne correspondent. His book 'No Previous Conviction' was published in May 2017 and is available on Amazon.

3 Comments

  1. It was suppressed to ensure the next that the next trial of same individual is fair and they can’t walk away on a technicality. It will all eventually be revealed, you just need to wait. People say they want a just system and when given one, they don’t like it. Funny how everyone wants to name this person when it puts the next case at risk. It’s almost like they secretly want ‘the person’ to get off. I don’t know, the only reason people would want that is if they are secretly like that themselves.

    • Whilst I accept the legal process associated with pending matters, I think you have to accept there is genuine public interest in the current case. There’s a high level of self- righteousness when it come to historical offences generally, (and this one in particular) but I can’t see the connection with sympathetic closet offenders who want people to “get off”.

  2. A few points.

    Firstly, other western democratic countries – the US, Canada et al- rarely if ever use suppression orders. They seem to do okay, and in fact their citizens are surveyed as having more confidence in their judicial systems than Australia.
    Secondly. the main thrust of the article, suppression orders are more widely available to those who have better resources. Essentially this is a parallel justice system and further erodes the general public’s confidence.
    Thirdly, the same people – like mabrahmz above – who “support” suppression orders are the same people who have gone online and subverted said suppression orders themselves. Why is it okay for mabrahmz to know what’s going on – the person involved, the charges etc -but not my visually impaired father who has limited access to the wider internet? I find this very hypocritical.
    Fourth, and most important, the orders DO NOT WORK. I know his name, you know his name, we all know his name. I didn’t even seek out the details, they were presented on the front page of my Reddit feed. Like the Ryan Giggs super injunction case in the UK, there is little point trying or pretending to suppress information that is widely disseminated. Unenforceable laws should be struck from the lawbook.

    Suppression orders have no place in an open democracy, in this, the information age.

Have Your Say