The digital ignorance of Australian judges is mindboggling

Like others who from time to time use the Internet to undertake serious research I am well aware how easy it is to retrieve from cyberspace documents that have been published or posted concerning a given individual once I have a name or initials and, at least one 'fact' associated with that same individual.

Not all Australian judges first came to the bar before the Internet was invented and some were still practicing as barristers when Google became a popular research tool. So it is more than naive, indeed it could be seen as reckless, for any court to suppress the name of a defendant or witness yet allow journalists to identify them by their own initials.

After reading one recent newspaper article online, it took me exactly two minutes to hit a correct search engine link which lead to the full name and details of unlawful activity to which one suppressed-identity defendant had plead guilty.

Another two minutes was all that was needed to retrieve further publicly available information which might allow an educated guess as to the general contents of a document which had been sealed by the court, as well as detailed evidence he had given previously in another matter.

One more mouse click and I had access to a number of full face and body photographs of the defendant. Several more after that and online media reports produced age, marital status, number of children, suburb of residence and welfare benefit status.

One has to presume that identities are often suppressed by the courts because of physical safety concerns. However, in this country such suppression orders are a feeble joke. Because even though the law may seek to blindfold, the Internet has myriad eyes.