this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
221 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
356 readers
119 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 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 ?