Doctor charged with filming naked pool patrons wins three-month secrecy order

A doctor accused of filming naked women and children in the change rooms of a public swimming pool is fighting to keep his name a secret.

It’s the latest attempt by an accused to suppress their identity on the grounds of psychological safety of a person.

Almost 500 suppression orders in various forms were issued in Victorian courts last year, with the highest number being issued on safety grounds – including for mental health reasons.

Last week, the doctor was handed a three-month interim order protecting his identity to allow him more time to obtain material backing his claim that reporting would impact the psychological safety of his child.

This is despite the legislation stating that interim orders must be formalised or struck out as a matter of “urgency”.

This masthead argued that the time frame granted was excessive and unsuccessfully urged the magistrate to reject the request.

The court earlier heard the father was arrested at the Harold Holt public pool in Glen Iris after he was allegedly caught filming under shower cubicles. A search of his phone by police allegedly uncovered a significant number of images and videos of females at the pool and other unknown locations, dating back to 2024.

This included a child believed to be aged about three, showering with her mother. Twenty electronic devices were seized from his Hawthorn home before he was granted bail and released back into the community.

This was despite police opposing his release on the grounds he posed a significant risk to the sexual safety of the community.

The man is the second doctor to be granted a suppression order over their identity since May, with another charged with raping a woman in his home given anonymity by the courts after citing mental health concerns.

On Wednesday, two women accused of spraying graffiti at the Reservoir and Heidelberg RSLs on Anzac Day that read “f— the Anzacs” were granted an order banning their faces from being shown on the basis that their safety was at risk from vigilantes.

The Age has analysed data from all suppression orders handed down in Victoria during 2025 that the press were notified about as per the legislative requirements.

The data shows 477 suppression orders were granted last year to 368 people. Of those granted, 95 were interim orders, 19 broad orders and 363 proceeding suppression orders.

Three days’ notice to the media of the intended application for a broad or proceeding suppression order is required in Victoria. Of the 383 applications requiring notice that resulted in orders being made, the press was notified of 50.

Orders made in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal were not part of the analysis due to the infrequent nature of their notice.

Where reasons were given for the granting of a suppression order, 146 were attributed to safety of a person. Whether the order is made for the physical or psychological safety of a person is not typically listed and is instead discussed in court as part of the application process.

The second-highest reason for orders being granted last year was to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, with 127.

A further 54 were granted to accused individuals where the court judged them to be serious offenders but believed it was in the public interest to suppress their names to assist rehabilitation.

Legislation also allowed for the suppressing of names in 86 cases where the accused was deemed mentally impaired and/or unfit to stand trial.

Those names are kept secret because it is deemed in “the public interest” to allow them to rehabilitate or reform.

A further 16 suppression orders were granted to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a complainant or witness in any criminal proceeding involving a sexual offence or a family violence offence, or to a child who is a witness in criminal proceedings.

Some interim orders seen by this masthead went weeks or months before being brought back before the court to determine if an ongoing order was necessary, which is the legal test.

In December, The Age revealed barristers 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 favourable treatment from police.

The instructional document provided advice on the best time to apply for a gag order and exactly what to ask psychiatrists to include in reports for suppression orders based on a risk of self-harm or deteriorating mental health.

The uncovering of the advice came amid public outrage over a suppression order granted to convicted rapist Tom Silvagni, the son of a famous footballer and a TV presenter. The gag order was lifted last year after more than a year of secrecy.

It’s also sparked calls for the government to make major changes to the legislation around suppression orders to remove the option for accused criminals to use it to keep their names a secret on the basis publicity would damage their psychological or psychiatric health.

On Thursday, shadow attorney-general James Newbury said if the Coalition won November’s state election, it would stop the abuse of suppression orders.

“Victorians are angry and we share their anger,” he said. “A future Liberals and Nationals government will end the abuse of suppression orders in Victoria by limiting their scope.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.