The new piece argues that Victoria’s reputation as the nation's 'suppression order capital' is attributable ironically, as an unfortunate consequence of the Victorian courts being more transparent regarding levels of suppression than courts in other jurisdictions'. Bosland notes concerns regarding reliance on very incomplete data compiled by News Corp, with figures derived from the number of orders notified to media organisations (whether via email or directly to journalists present in court) rather than the number of orders actually made.
The article notes that the NSW Supreme Court issued over 50% more suppression orders than the Victorian Supreme Court and that scrutiny of NSW lower courts is difficult because order notifications are rare and registries do not keep track of the numbers.
Importantly the article argues that the 'Suppression Capital' meme does not account for the variety in the types of orders that can be made, noting that a significant number of Victorian orders are made under statutory powers designed to deal with specific contexts, such as details of post-custodial sex offenders, or the names of people found not guilty by reason of mental illness. Courts elsewhere lack the specific statutory powers. Bosland accordingly notes that data should account for the fact that not all orders represent courts' 'general' approach to suppression; some instead respond to specific interventions by Parliament.
In a cogent examination of jurimetrics Bosland notes that jurisdictional 'rankings' do not account for significant differences in caseloads (consistent with differences in population). He argues that if judicial officers serve as a proxy for caseload, Victorian judges made an average of 1.5 general power suppression orders per judge, compared to 2.2 in Western Australia and 2.3 in South Australia. In a more restricted comparison between the NSW and Victorian Supreme Courts, the NSW supremes made 1.84 orders per judge and the Victorians made 1.36 orders per judge.
Jules O’Donnell, whose tweets drew my attention to the Bosland piece, astutely comments
it seems to me that if you took the most hawkish approach to Bosland's analysis, your conclusion would still be: 'we can't be sure which State or Territory is the suppression capital of Australia, but we know Victorian courts and tribunals are the most transparent'.
