Recent cases show exactly why suppression law must change

August 4, 2026 — 7:45pm

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

This week the public learnt the identity of a rapist. The man, Ralph Carr, was convicted last week by a jury of one count of sexual assault and two of rape dating back to 2023. Carr had pleaded not guilty. He had sought and been granted a suppression order on his name.

Thus, for three years, as the case went through the courts, the public had no idea of his identity, his age, or the industry in which he worked. He was only a well-known Melbourne businessman. On Monday, a judge ordered the suppression order be lifted after Carr said he would not be seeking its continuance. His lawyers say he will be appealing his conviction.

Carr’s is not an isolated case in relation to those applying for and being granted a suppression order. As the Open Courts Act section 18 stands at present, he and his legal team were merely using one line in it.

Tom Silvagni and his legal team used the same method to suppress his........

© The Age