They will not openly say that they want to keep their name out of the media but on a big case a lawyer will most probably say something along the lines of to ease the discomfort caused to family or some such thing, but it amounts to the same thing they dont want their name bandied about in the media.
'They' will not openly say they want to keep their names out of the media, because they don't need to say that, irrespective of the reason for a suppression order to 'keep their names out of the media' is the precise
reason suppression orders are granted.
Victim protection is a big deal, so to the protection of the accused family. Children of an alleged pedophile/murderer/criminal do not need other children in the school yard/playground asking them questions or otherwise giving them a hard time for their parent's misbehavior. Victims of rape or other assault do not need to have their attacker's name publicised continuously in the open media, they've had to deal with that enough.
A judge or magistrate will then most likely agree and order the suppression of names or other things though.
You see it here in SA being used like this at times.
Tell us what the last case to be subject to a suppression order in South Australia was, and why you think it should not have been granted. How did this suppression order specifically affect your life? How would your life have been improved by knowing the suppressed details at the time?
If anything a supression order should only have a set time it operates like two weeks after the case has been heard and then it automatically is lifted. I am not saying use two weeks though just citing a time period to demonstrate it.
Most suppression orders are lifted as soon as practicable, some do not even last to the end of the trial. Hard limits are foolish, take the Pell situation, the suppression on his name and the trial outcome was done to protect a future case, suppose that case didn't make it to court within your defined time before automatically lifting it?
Also all suppression orders should have a set time to them and the cases they can be used on, meaning that in a little case of shoplifting or something it cannot be used, but in a major case like murder or something they can apply certain suppression orders to the case. In other words a pre made out list of what can be used in what court cases. At the moment it is left up to a Judge or Magistrate to do, the list would be fairer way to do it though.
Seriously, and I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw a 'shoplifter' in court? Please advise of the last 'shoplifting case' subjected to a suppression order? Has that happened ever?
The granting of suppression orders, their scope and period of application is left to the discretion of the trial judge, generally because they are in the best and most objective position to judge how the suppression order needs to be made. One size fits all as you suggest doesn't work once you acknowledge that invariably no two cases are the same.
They should not be set free on technicalities in the first place
An astounding statement from you, the man near single handedly outlining the case for providing the very technical breach of trial conduct suppression orders seek to prevent.
if the evidence is there convict them on it.
This is traditionally how it works. Do you mean to suggest that trials work on some other basis?
The Pell suppression (like nearly all suppression orders) was sought by the prosecution, we need to maintain fairness and an absence of bias in our legal system. Naming him and his convictions in the current trial would have all but made i impossible to find an impartial jury for the subsequent (dropped) case, that Sir, is what you call a 'technicality'. Forget a second conviction, we cannot even assess the evidence in that case...
If you are innocent then it can be proved if not do the crime then do the time.
Just so you know, this is the exact opposite of how our legal system works.
FYI, I have breached suppression orders before, I attended nearly everyday of the Bunting and Wagner trial, nearly everyday there was something suppressed, sometimes more than one thing. It was nearly impossible for a non professional person to keep up. I named Vlassakis whilst his name was suppressed, and also mentioned victim Ray Davies name who's name was suppressed until quite recently. The trial was well over although Haydon's trial had not commenced. Nothing came of it, but I shouldn't have done it.
Just about every suppression in that trial was to protect evidence in case of a mistrial, honestly David, was your life so impacted that you were not allowed to be told what colour the barrels were? Would you have felt better if you knew what Vlassakis looked like? Or if you knew which ATMs they fraudulently drew money from?
Would knowing the name of the clown who killed a family because the daughter wasn't interested in him have changed your understanding of a case? I went to that trial too, I looked at that piece of smeg many times, knew his name and saw the evidence that you couldn't see - of that you should be thankful.