The Suppression Rort
- Opened on fileThe secrecy you can buy
Open justice with a price of admission. Interim secrecy is most available to those with the resources to assemble it, the orders that matter escape the Act that is supposed to govern them, and nobody can even say how many exist.
Fig. 02 / What happened
Fig. 03 / Who the record names
How we know
The exhibits sit beside the title above, each tied to the article that documented it. How evidence and sources are graded: evidence grade, source tiers.
What else is connected
Named in this case and in others. A count of where the record names them, not a finding about what they did.
From the desk
- Watch: did the Open Courts Act pledge survive the 28 November electionThe order the Act cannot reach · The Suppression RortThe Suppression Rort
Read the desk note
Check whether the Carroll and Kilkenny pledge of 11 August 2026 survived the election result, whether a bill amending the Open Courts Act 2013 has been introduced, and whether it reaches interim orders or only orders held after conviction. The week after the election is this desk's own date, not drawn from any calendar entry; election day itself is tracked separately.
- Watch: Carr's appeal window and the Queensland costs rulingThe order the Act cannot reach · The Suppression RortThe Suppression Rort
Read the desk note
Check whether Carr's lawyers have lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal, now that the two months the ABC reported on 25 August 2026 have run to about 25 October 2026, and whether a costs ruling in ABC v A Magistrates Court of Queensland [2026] QSC 203 has been published. The date is the first working day after that window, as this desk reads it, not a date from any document.
- Correction publishedThe secrecy you can buy · The Suppression Rort
This section said Tom Silvagni’s identity was suppressed for 545 days and that his appeal was pending. No source read for this correction gives the date of the suppression order or the charge, so the count of days cannot be derived: SBS (reference 10) says he was identified “more than a year and a half after he was charged” and that he was charged in June 2024, and ABC News (reference 17) says…
- Record: article 2 updated, 19 October 2026The order the Act cannot reach · The Suppression RortThe Suppression Rort · the New South Wales orders corrected against the judgment · the date settled at first hand
The paragraph above that begins 'The basis for the orders was not the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)' was wrong about the suppression and non-publication orders. The judgment bases the suppression and non-publication orders on the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), not on inherent jurisdiction. It records that Justice Lindsay made the interim…
Read the desk note
UPDATED 19 October 2026 (case: THE SUPPRESSION RORT, article 2).
ARTICLE CHANGES. Five dated paragraphs added, each after the section's existing paragraphs, which are left as published: an update on the Queensland judgment in 'The order Queensland kept'; an update settling the date, and a correction of the legal basis of the New South Wales orders, in 'A third order, a third basis'; a correction in 'What a pledge can amend, and what it cannot'; an update on the open threads in 'Two threads still open'; and a correction in 'The machinery outlives the Act'. The byline now reads 'updated 19 October 2026'. As on 7 October, places that restate the corrected claim were changed in place: the label and citation of the 1 July 2026 timeline entry, the fourth line of the brief, and the descriptions of references [5], [15] and [16]. The subtitle, the third paragraph of the opening, the hero image's alt text and caption and the hero graphic (text, and its bar, now one third) were also changed in place to the corrected basis, the quotation from Justice McGrath was corrected ('rather than have harm', paragraph [164]), and the two phrases wrongly put to Wotton Kearney were re-attributed to the UTS case note; the correction in 'A third order, a third basis' records what each said before. The Queensland power is described as the Magistrates Court's implied power, not inherent jurisdiction (QSC 203 at [65] and [66]), in the hero graphic, its alt text and the update and corrections in 'The order Queensland kept', 'What a pledge can amend, and what it cannot' and 'The machinery outlives the Act'. References [20] and [21] were added.
FINDING. The judgment, AB v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] NSWSC 767, was read on NSW Caselaw on 19 October 2026 (hearing 23 June 2026; decision date 1 July 2026; McGrath J). The date of 1 July 2026 is confirmed at first hand. The article's account of the legal basis was wrong: the suppression and non-publication orders rest on the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8(1)(a), 10 and 11, not on inherent jurisdiction; only the injunction rests on equity. The paragraph the UTS note cites as [64] is [164]. The Queensland judgment, ABC v A Magistrates Court of Queensland [2026] QSC 203 (Henry J, 28 August 2026), was read on the Queensland Judgments site: the order under review is order 4 of 8 June 2026; the result is a declaration on the effect of order 4 with the application otherwise dismissed; costs were listed for 9am on 7 September 2026 if not agreed, and no costs ruling was found. No appeal by Carr was found. AustLII refused automated access (a bot wall) and was not read; caselaw.nsw.gov.au and queenslandjudgments.com.au were read directly.
WHAT STAYS OPEN. The Queensland costs outcome; whether Carr's lawyers have lodged an appeal, the window reported by the ABC on 25 August 2026 running to about 25 October 2026; the sealed New South Wales orders as entered, which were not seen.
NEXT DATE. A watch is set for 26 October 2026, the first working day after the window the ABC reported for Carr's appeal; the watch for 4 December 2026 on the Open Courts Act pledge stands.
- Watch: the open threads in the suppression follow-upThe order the Act cannot reach · The Suppression RortThe Suppression Rort
Read the desk note
Check the outcome of the Queensland costs submissions listed for 7 September 2026, read AB v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] NSWSC 767 at first hand to confirm the 1 July 2026 date the article now prints from Inforrm and Mediaweek (the primary text has not been opened), and check whether Carr's lawyers have filed the flagged appeal to the Court of Appeal, not confirmed as filed or decided as of 9 September 2026. One month on is this desk's own reading, not a date drawn from any document.
- Correction publishedThe secrecy you can buy · The Suppression Rort
This section dated Women's Agenda's report on the post-verdict interim order to early August 2026. The article is dated 29 July 2026, and the text and reference now say so. Reference now carries the headline the AAP page currently shows, with its original title noted.
- Correction publishedThe order the Act cannot reach · The Suppression Rort
This section said three sources gave three different dates for AB v Australian Broadcasting Corporation NSWSC 767 and that none could be printed as settled. Inforrm and Mediaweek both date the ruling to 1 July 2026, and the 13 August 2026 date this article attributed to the court's reasons is the posting date of the UTS Faculty of Law case note. The section, its fact box and the sidebar now give…
- Correction publishedThe secrecy you can buy · The Suppression Rort
This section said pseudonym and concealment orders 'go uncounted, as Bosland set out in The Conversation'. Bosland's article sets out that these orders sit outside the Open Courts Act and operate as de facto suppression orders; that no count of them was located is this outlet's own finding, and the sentence now says so. Reference, which pointed only to The Conversation's home page, now gives the…
- Record: suppression follow-up published as article 2; Carr named in article 1The order the Act cannot reach · The Suppression RortThe Suppression Rort · attended 9 September 2026
Read the desk note
ATTENDED 9 September 2026 (audit item: suppression follow-up, due before 28 November 2026).
FINDING. Ralph Carr, previously the unnamed 'entertainment and sports manager' in article 1, can now be named: his suppression order lapsed on 3 August 2026 when his own legal team abandoned the extension application, not by any ruling against him. He was sentenced on 25 August 2026 to six years with a four-year non-parole period, after a stay application was argued and rejected. An appeal has been flagged but not confirmed as filed or decided. In Queensland, a non-publication order over an unnamed man was upheld on judicial review on 28 August 2026, resting on the court's inherent power to protect the administration of justice rather than any statute. In New South Wales, the Supreme Court restrained a broadcaster and suppressed four identities in AB v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, resting on inherent jurisdiction and equitable breach of confidence rather than the state's own suppression orders Act. Neither interstate mechanism sits inside the Open Courts Act 2013 that Victoria's pledge would amend.
ARTICLE CHANGES. Article 2, 'The order the Act cannot reach', published, setting out the interstate comparison. Article 1, 'The secrecy you can buy', updated: the byline now reads 'updated 9 September 2026'; the passage on the second case in 'The order finishes its work before the verdict' was rewritten to name Carr and add the stay application, the sentence and the flagged appeal; a new key fact was added recording Carr's naming and sentence; and references [13] and [14] were added to support the sentence and the stay application.
STILL OPEN: the outcome of the Queensland costs submissions listed for 7 September 2026, the true date of AB v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] NSWSC 767, and Carr's flagged appeal, none of them confirmed as of this date.
NEXT DATE: watches set for 9 October 2026 and 4 December 2026.