Secrecy order for Melbourne doctor charged with filming naked women, children at pool
A doctor accused of filming naked women and children in the changing rooms of a public swimming pool is fighting to remain anonymous.
This is the latest attempt by a defendant to conceal his identity on grounds of the person’s psychological safety.
Nearly 500 restraining orders of various forms were issued in Victorian courts last year; The highest number was given for safety reasons, including mental health reasons.
Last week the doctor was granted a three-month interim order to protect her identity to give her more time to gather material supporting her claim that reporting would affect her child’s psychological safety.
This is despite legislation stating that interim orders must be formalized or revoked as a matter of “emergency”.
This imprint argued that the time granted was excessive and unsuccessfully forced the magistrate to deny the request.
The court previously heard the father was arrested after he was allegedly caught filming under shower stalls at the Harold Holt public pool in Glen Iris. It was claimed that during the search of the police’s phone, many pictures and videos of women in the pool and other unknown places, dating back to 2024, were unearthed.
These included a child, believed to be around three years old, who was taking a shower with his mother. 20 electronic devices were seized from his home in Hawthorn before he was released on bail and returned to the community.
This was despite police opposing his release on the grounds that he posed a significant risk to the sexual safety of the public.
While the man became the second doctor to whom a confidentiality order was issued due to his identity since May, another is accused of raping a woman in her home and the courts decided to keep his identity secret, citing concerns about his mental health.
On Wednesday, two women accused of spraying graffiti reading “f— Anzacs” on the Reservoir and Heidelberg RSLs on Anzac Day were granted an order banning their faces from being shown on the grounds their safety was at risk from vigilantes.
Age It analyzed data from all suppression orders issued in Victoria in 2025 and for which the press was notified in accordance with legal requirements.
Data shows 477 restraining orders were issued to 368 people last year. Of the decisions made, 95 were temporary orders, 19 were general orders and 363 were continuing suspension orders.
In Victoria, an intended application for a blanket or continuing restraining order requires three days’ notice to the media. Of the 383 applications requiring notification that resulted in a decision, 50 were reported to the press.
Orders made in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal were not part of the analysis due to the infrequency of notifications.
Where reasons were given for granting a suppression order, 146 were linked to a person’s safety. Whether the decision is made for a person’s physical or psychological safety is usually not listed and is instead discussed in court as part of the application process.
The second highest reason for decisions made last year was to prevent a real and significant risk of harm to the proper administration of justice, at 127.
A further 54 were given to defendants who the court considered to be serious criminals but believed it was in the public interest to suppress their names to aid rehabilitation.
The legislation also allowed for names to be suppressed in 86 cases in which the defendant was deemed mentally disabled and/or unfit to stand trial.
These names are being kept secret because it is considered “in the public interest” to allow them to be rehabilitated or reformed.
A further 16 suppression orders were made to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a complainant or witness in any criminal investigation involving a sexual offense or domestic violence offence, or to a child who is a witness in a criminal proceeding.
The grounds for a continuing stay in section 18 of the Open Courts Act 2013 include:
A court or tribunal other than the Coroner’s Court may order a stay of proceedings if one or more of the following grounds are satisfied:
(a) the order is necessary to prevent a real and significant risk of harm to the proper administration of justice which cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means;
(b) the order is necessary to prevent harm to the interests of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory in relation to national or international security.
(c) the order is necessary for the protection of the safety of any person.
(d) the order is necessary to prevent undue distress or embarrassment to the complainant or witness in any criminal prosecution involving a sexual offense or domestic violence offence.
(e) the order is necessary to prevent undue distress or embarrassment to a child who is a witness in any criminal proceeding.
Some temporary orders seen by this imprint passed weeks or months before being brought back to court to determine whether a continuing order was necessary; This is a legal test.
In December, this imprint revealed that lawyers were being advised on how to keep high-profile clients accused of serious crimes out of the spotlight, with a how-to guide outlining tactics for obtaining suppression orders and seeking favorable treatment from the police.
The guidance document included advice on the best time to invoke a gag order and exactly what psychiatrists would be asked to include in restraining orders reports based on the risk of self-harm or mental ill-health.
The advice comes amid public outrage over a suppression order issued against convicted rapist Tom Silvagni, the son of a famous footballer and a TV presenter. The gag ban was lifted last year after more than a year of secrecy.
It has also sparked calls for the government to make major changes to the legislation on suppression orders to remove the option for accused criminals to use them to keep their names secret on the grounds that publicity would harm their psychological or psychiatric health.
On Thursday, Shadow Attorney General James Newbury said he would stop the abuse of Coalition suppression orders if elected.
“Victorians are angry and we share their anger,” he said. “A future Liberal and Nationals government will end the abuse of restraining orders in Victoria by limiting their scope.”
Start your day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
