In regards to name suppression in SA.
Central to the Australian legal system is the principle that justice must be seen to bedone.1 The standard position is that legal proceedings are open, information is notconcealed from those present at the proceedings, and the media can report what hasoccurred in open proceedings. Open justice is a basic aspect of what it means for alegal tribunal to operate. And yet, in some circumstances unrestricted reporting couldfrustrate the administration of justice.
Another model is provided by South Australia. There, courts can make suppressionorders under s 69A of the Evidence Act 1929. (This outline concerns s 69A as itexisted during September 2006; expected reforms are considered below.) It does notuse a test of necessity, but requires satisfaction that an order ‘should be made’ on oneof two grounds: preventing prejudice to ‘the proper administration of justice’ orpreventing ‘undue hardship’ to children, alleged victims of crime, or witnesses (whoare not parties) in civil or criminal matters.51 In addition, courts must recognise as‘considerations of substantial weight’ the ‘public interest in publication of informationrelated to court proceedings, and the consequential right of the news media to publishsuch information’.52 Courts can only make an order against publication ‘if satisfiedthat the prejudice to the proper administration of justice, or the undue hardship.
So I'm guessing the name suppression was granted due to the overwhelming media coverage this story received. It is not uncommon at all for this to happen here in SA so I wouldn't read into it too much, the guy had been linked to a murder in Tasmania if I recall correctly, however I don't think he is our CSK.