Chief Justice Richard Niall has responded to a recent report on media access to the Courts.
Statement from the Hon Chief Justice Richard Niall
Chair of Courts Council
2 March 2025
The courts are committed to working with journalists to assist the public in understanding Victoria’s justice system and to make the work of the courts as open and transparent as possible.
The courts are proud of their longstanding history of substantial and daily engagement with journalists. Small teams of experienced staff, often former journalists, are employed within the courts to assist reporters. Those teams routinely respond to more than 750 requests a week relating to the provision of transcripts, exhibits, listings, and information about cases. In 2025, staff helped media connect remotely to hearings on more than 3,000 occasions in the Supreme Court and County Court, in addition to public livestreaming of some hearings. There are 255 accredited journalists who are provided with remote access to Magistrates’ Court hearings daily at locations across the State. The Supreme Court and County Court process on average 53 media requests to search files a week at no cost.
The courts also host roundtables with media, support cadet journalist programs, and provide onsite offices for media. This month alone, the Supreme Court and County Court hosted trainee journalists for sessions observing proceedings and speaking with Judges to help them understand how courts work. The Magistrates’ Court also held a media roundtable over breakfast with representatives from nine media outlets and gratefully received feedback from journalists about their experiences.
We undertake these activities because we recognise the importance of court reporting and open justice.
We were disappointed to see a report released this week that did not reflect the scale and scope of the positive engagement with media by the courts across Victoria. The report was based on interviews with 12 journalists from five media outlets. It includes but, does not engage with, the response from the Director of Public Prosecutions and appears to have made no attempt to engage with the legal profession who apply for suppression orders, or the reasons for which orders are made. It contains a number of misleading claims, selective citations and suppression order data which has been debunked as incomplete and misleading.
Each day, cases before the courts are reported to the public by hardworking and professional journalists. Thousands of stories about the matters in our Courts are published and broadcast each year.
A tiny fraction of the more than 350,000 cases before the courts and VCAT each year have an order which restricts the publication of some information. The orders are often of limited duration and restrict specific details. Reasons for making the orders include that they are necessary to protect the safety of individuals, including vulnerable witnesses and undercover police and national security information. Orders are also made for limited periods to ensure fair trials. Orders are subject to appeal and are often revisited in light of changing circumstances. If fair trials are jeopardised by the publication of certain information, juries may be discharged, or verdicts may be overturned on appeal and the trial has to begin again. This places a significant burden on everyone involved, including victims and their families. The cardinal principle is always to have court hearings in open court save in confined and narrow circumstances.
The availability of the Heads of Jurisdiction should not have been taken as a reflection of the relationship with media nor the courts’ commitment to open justice.
The courts were not presented with the claims now published in the report. The report claims that the courts frequently and routinely breach the Open Courts Act 2013. This assertion is rejected.
Under the Open Courts Act 2013, news media organisations can seek a review of an order made at any time.
Public and open hearings are a fundamental part of the justice system and we recognise that media reporting is an important part of our constitutional democracy.
Remote access provided by the courts has exponentially increased journalists’ ability to report on court cases and there has never been greater access to court hearings than there is today. Over 3,800 written reasons for decision of the courts and VCAT were published on public websites last year.
You only need to click on a news site or turn on the television or radio to know that court reporting provides a significant source of news in Victoria — we will always welcome and support that.
Like all judicial officers, I welcome and encourage scrutiny of judicial decisions. Regrettably this report gives a misleading and selective picture.