The Daily Aus The convicted rapist the media can't name
Dec 10, 2025
A man was recently convicted of rape, but a suppression order prevents the media from naming him. The discussion dives into the implications of such orders and the public's growing frustration with their frequency in Victoria. The hosts explain what these orders are, the potential penalties for breaching them, and the historical context influencing their use. They highlight how the 2013 Open Courts Act aimed to tackle this issue, while also examining the complexities social media brings to enforcement. It's a crucial conversation about justice and transparency.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Victim Testimony And Evidence
- A woman testified she was sleeping when a man (Man A) sneaked into her bed and raped her, pretending to be another man (Man B).
- The jury heard Man A later doctored an Uber receipt and was found guilty on two counts of rape.
Active Suppression Order Explained
- The media aren't withholding the name by choice; a live suppression order legally bars publication.
- That order remained active even after the jury returned guilty verdicts.
Don't Publish Suppressed Details
- Do not publish suppressed details because suppression orders make it illegal to reveal specific facts or identities.
- Follow court directions or risk major penalties for breach.