this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
221 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
356 readers
130 users here now
Your one-stop shop for any and everything Australia.
Guidelines:
- Try to be a decent person and interact nicely
- Different opinions are tolerated, hate is not.
Other Communities:
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not going to defend a rapist, but these types of oddities of the court system are intended to protect victims and innocent people. If they occasionally mean that a guilty person is treated more humanely than they deserve, then so be it.
No, the court literally gave the reason and it was for him not the victim.
It was because of the apparent risk that he'd harm himself (and none of us can accurately speculate on the reality of that), but the suppression order was lifted when he was found guilty.
He's not innocent and they still kept the suppression order afterwards, it was only removed after backlash and constant probes from media and citizens.
He was found guilty last Tuesday. Papers seem to ~~success~~ suggest the intervening week is to allow the legal teams to prepare for a request to extend, but that didn't happen.
I can't imagine you're suggesting that we should presume people are guilty before a jury concludes?
So there was one week where he was a known rapist, and it was illegal to call him that? One week seems like a reasonably short duration for the paperwork to be sorted.
Also to allow time for any appeals to be filed.
Can you explain why this happened to him more clearly? I'm definitely not understanding.
I dont know anything about this case.
The post seems to be complaining about the Australian court system.
I was just pointing out that the court has the ability to temporarily suppress the release of names and such in order to minimise unintended harm caused by the justice process.
As an aside, wanting this guys name released is a form of vindictive punishment. IMO penalties should focus firstly on reducing harm to the community and secondly rehabilitating the perp to whatever extent is possible. Naming and shaming isn't justice, it's just vindication.
He was convicted of two counts of rape, it's not an ongoing, active case where not releasing his name would make more sense.
Once convicted, I feel it's fair game, people should know his name, absolutely. Reducing harm to the community would be ensuring people know what he did in my opinion. It's not like it was jaywalking.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/03/ralph-carr-revealed-melbourne-business-man-identity-guilty-rape-ntwnfb
He was only found guilty last week, and the suppression order was lifted on Monday. The delay of several days is not significant.
I agree that once convicted names should be published, because the public has an interest in knowing.
However, I don't think publishing names really reduces harm. Do you have a running reference list in your mind of all the people found guilty of violent crime in recent decades ?
Of course not, but since he was actually convicted, it should be part of public record. Especially since he was convicted of rape. Same as if he was convicted of murder. Only one reason you wouldn't want people to know...
Why wouldn't it reduce harm? At least people can avoid him, especially females.
That's exactly what happened ?
The suppression order was in place for many months while his trial was on going. After he was convicted, the suppression order was lifted within a week.
Are you really complaining that it took them a week to lift the suppression order ?
Ask Grace Tame about that though.
Out of the loop on that. Quick look on Wikipedia suggests she opposed a law that prevented her from talking about her experience.
I can see that's related in that it's a law pertaining to victims of assault, but it does to seem relevant to releasing this guys name?
Sorry Wikipedia is missing some hugely key information there. Grace Tame was a student in high school when a teacher groomed and raped her repeatedly. Because of the law she couldn't say anything, but he could, so he went around publicly talking about how she lured him, it was consensual etc and made himself out to be the poor hard done by victim. After all she went through it entirely doubled down on the harm he did to her to hear about it, so she ,badass that she is, set about to change the law that were not protecting her, they were entirely protecting the perpetrator. Just like they're protecting the perpetrator in this case. She was a kid, he was an adult, and if you want to entertain his argument, she didn't chase him, once she was allowed to speak, she described every incident. It was not consensual in any way. Yet another example the law doesn't protect victims. Grace Tame was Australian of the year in 2021, is my absolute hero, and even more so for the fact she keeps speaking up, so much so Anthony Albanese recently called her difficult.
Oh please. We both know exactly what happened when Albo "called her difficult" - it was part of a media event where he was asked to describe people with one word - intended to produce controversy exactly like this.
That's not what happened though, within a few days of him being found guilty, being found to actually be a perpetrator, the suppression order was lifted.
How do you think the law should have worked in this case ?
Grace Tames example was an example of how the law that's supposed to protect victims, actually protects predators. Wait, whose side are you on?
I'm not on anyone's "side", and certainly not defending the actions of a rapist.
How do you think the law should have worked in this case ?