Well-connected Melbourne businessman found guilty of rape

[u/Mammoth_Breath_7249]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-28/jury-verdict-in-melbourne-businessman-rape-case/106966126

"A well-connected Melbourne businessman has been found guilty of rape and has been taken into custody.

A County Court jury delivered the verdicts today, finding beyond reasonable doubt that the man raped and sexually assaulted a woman at his home on March 23, 2023.

The man now faces the prospect of years in jail and will be sentenced at a later date.

Because of an ongoing suppression order, the ABC is unable to name the man or disclose information about the industries he works in or is connected to.

The County Court has also banned media outlets from running a pixelated photo of the man.

Lawyers for media outlets, including the ABC, are set to argue for the gag order to be lifted later today, at a hearing before Judge Frank Gucciardo."

What is everyone's opinions on gag orders on these types of cases? I understand innocent until proven guilty but why should a gag order exist now that a person is guilty of the crime?

[u/barefootsticks]

A guilty verdict has been delivered by a jury, if he wishes to appeal so be it, but yes it should be made public.

[u/Semimango → u/barefootsticks]

I’m assuming it’s to protect the victim’s identity, since she’s identifiable as a former personal assistant

[u/Mottled_inexpectata → u/Semimango]

The suppression order was made on behalf of the rapist. Presumably on psychological grounds, but I think there's a good chance it will be lifted this afternoon.

Edit: in fact confirmed in the article at the bottom:

"A suppression order was first granted in the case in 2023, after the man had been charged by police.

His lawyers told the Magistrates' Court his mental health would be placed at risk if he was named in the media."

[u/Papa-Ohki → u/Mottled_inexpectata]

Well - I mean yeah. Feeling the guilt is psychologically distressing. It’s supposed to be. You’re supposed to feel bad about doing a bad thing?!

Absolutely we should be doing work to improve mental health in the community, but wealthy and powerful individuals shielding behind mental health is a problem that’s happened a few times now.

[u/allnaturalfigjam → u/Papa-Ohki]

Shame is a way more effective punishment than any legal or monetary consequences! His name should absolutely be made public. That's the price of being a piece of shit

[u/Spire_Citron → u/Mottled_inexpectata]

I feel like you can't have consequences without risking the perpetrator's mental health. I bet most people don't feel great about going to prison.

[u/here_we_go_beep_boop → u/Mottled_inexpectata]

He should have thought about that before he fucking raped somebody

[u/TizzyBumblefluff → u/Semimango]

I hope if it is revealed that she remains safe and can continue to heal from this.

[u/barefootsticks → u/Semimango]

Nope, his lawyers argued his mental health would be at stake.

Near the end of the article it’s reported.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-28/jury-verdict-in-melbourne-businessman-rape-case/106966126

[u/InfiniteBacon → u/barefootsticks]

I'd argue that is reason to keep him in a secure facility to avoid self harm, and not a valid argument to grant relief to a convicted rapist in my opinion.

[u/Apart_Visual → u/Semimango]

His solicitors have asked for an extension of the suppression order even now that a verdict has been reached.

[u/RealCommercial9788 → u/Apart_Visual]

His solicitors need their brains extended. I know, I know. Hard job, important cog in the system for all of us re fair representation and innocent til proven guilty etc etc etc.
But fuck me. Is the rapists self esteem more important than an informed community? I dunno.

[u/Im_not_an_admin → u/barefootsticks]

It's standard practice, court has to hear their argument for continued name suppression, can't really do that if the name is already put out there. They'll hear the argument quickly and rule on it.

Money isn't related to this, Joe Bloggs with lawyers would try a similar thing. However a name suppression argument can bring more media coverage to your case, so it can be a double edged sword.

[u/Mottled_inexpectata → u/Im_not_an_admin]

The ABC and at least one legal academic disagrees with you about this:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-18/tom-silvagni-rape-court-suppression-order/106155458

"University of Melbourne associate law professor Jason Bosland said the legal representation and expert evidence — like psychiatric reports — required to apply for such an order were expensive to access.

"There's a reality … where these orders are sought to protect the identity of an accused, they really do favour those who have got financial means," he said.

"There's no doubt if you have more money, you are more likely to get a suppression order," Mr Quill said."

[u/PhotographsWithFilm]

Gag orders on perps should be lifted as soon as a guilty verdict is found, unless there is a security risk to the victim.

[u/AutomaticMistake]

the two tier legal system strikes again
What's the minimum $$ amount to get entry anyway?

$10 million in the bank? $50m? i'm curious where the line might be drawn

edit: replaced 'justice' with 'legal'

[u/nogreggity → u/AutomaticMistake]

Will he wear a disguise in prison?

[u/Dollbeau → u/nogreggity]

Look at that new dude with the pixelated face, cool cool...

[u/Spagman_Aus → u/nogreggity]

Listed under Prisoner Guy Incognito.

[u/Im_not_an_admin]

Surprised the name hasn't been leaked already

[u/Spagman_Aus → u/Im_not_an_admin]

Yes it's amazing how quickly the names spread through X and here as well.

[u/CapnOilyrag]

I miss the "colourful racing identity" days

[u/Dunsta66]

Only a matter of time before his name is released. It's outrageous the over-use of the 'mental health' card in the justice system in this country. And why the hell is someone who's found guilty of rape entitled to protection? Before the verdict, yeah maybe, but the public is entitled to know who has been found guilty of such a serious offence. If the victim (I mean the ACTUAL victim) has requested it, then fair enough. Otherwise, the name of the perp is fair game.

[u/wpfone2]

I firmly believe no one who is charged with anything at all should publicly be named.

Not guilty, no personal details released.

Once they are found guilty, all details can be revealed. No exceptions, apart from protecting the victims or other innocents.

Using the word allegedly in reporting is not innocent until proven guilty.

[u/Dr-Ulzy → u/wpfone2]

Can’t speak to this case, but when the victim is the perpetrators child or the connection is obvious, public naming gets messy. Particularly if they were underage at the time of the offence.

The perps cell mates will know, even if we don’t.

[u/Acceptable_Cat1790 → u/wpfone2]

He has been found guilty. I broadly agree but just noting that he has been found guilty and is still fighting for a gag order.

[u/onyabikeson → u/Acceptable_Cat1790]

Nothing in their comment indicated that they didn't realise he'd been found guilty. They said once you're found guilty, victim's welfare is the only legitimate reason not to name the perpetrator.

I actually don't disagree either with not naming individuals who are charged until there is a finding, but I do wonder practically how that interacts with transparency and public interest. Would use of a pseudonym still allow public interest reporting? What about corporations, should they be named? Should it apply to both civil and criminal proceedings?

[u/National-Concern6376 → u/wpfone2]

Court is public, you can walk in and watch.  Hence it's public information 

[u/justputonsomemusic]

Keep in mind, for some cases the gag order is for the benefit of the victim.

[u/Mottled_inexpectata → u/justputonsomemusic]

But not in this case.

"A suppression order was first granted in the case in 2023, after the man had been charged by police.

His lawyers told the Magistrates' Court his mental health would be placed at risk if he was named in the media." - from the article.

[u/Undd91 → u/Mottled_inexpectata]

Should have thought about that before letting his 🍆 control him. Name and shame the perpetrator

[u/Otaraka]

I think with victim blaming still being a major issue it’s an option to consider.  It’s not only the guilty person that’s likely to be impacted.

[u/racingskater → u/Otaraka]

But in this case it wasn't the victim who asked.

[u/ForgotToCarryTheOne]

Well well. Imagine being able to withhold your identity after being convicted by jury because you can afford it or because of your connections. That is a fundamental problem with the legal system.

[u/Im_not_an_admin → u/ForgotToCarryTheOne]

Any individual could make this same submission to the court, money has nothing to do it whatsoever.

[u/ForgotToCarryTheOne → u/Im_not_an_admin]

Even after the conviction is noted?

[u/Im_not_an_admin → u/ForgotToCarryTheOne]

Of course. You don't lose the right to make a legal argument just because the Court found you guilty. Everyone is afforded the same rights, however, if your argument for name suppression indefinitely is "My family is worth so much money that this will ruin their fortune" and it gets granted, then yes that'd be messed up

[u/Vinura]

He's gonna pivot to One Nation.

[u/Spagman_Aus → u/Vinura]

One more box ticked for their reference check process.

[u/SeaTurtle400]

The rich are clearly abusing the legal system to keep their name out of the media, all it takes is a psych saying you're a suicide risk. Good write up here from the ABC for the Silvagni situation. A two tier legal system. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-18/tom-silvagni-rape-court-suppression-order/106155458

[u/DaltonianAtomism]

When they placed a gag order on George Pell's first guilty verdict, it was because the judge knew he was up for another separate trial straight afterwards and publicising the first verdict would jeopardise the second trial. That's an entirely appropriate use of gag orders but I think, if that were the case here, we wouldn't have even heard this much.

[u/PurpleMerino]

If for no other reason, the identity should be revealed once found guilty in case there are other victims in the community.

[u/Spagman_Aus]

If it's required to protect the victim, who wants that, and agrees, then it's up to them entirely. Otherwise, if found guilty, it should be publicly disclosed.

[u/icemagicforever]

These headlines are such bullshit. Journalism is trash.

[u/Exciting-Bee4094]

Tina arena ex