One young offender, Tom Silvagni, son of former Australian Rules Football great Stephen Silvagni, was on very serious charges. On December 5, he was found guilty of two counts of rape. The case has counterintuitively caught headline attention in Melbourne. In January 2024, Silvagni assaulted a woman digitally in his Habitat. Since the conviction, Silvagni has been imprisoned as he awaits a pre-sentence hearing.
The legal proceedings involving Silvagni are still largely cloaked in secrecy. Judge Peter Rozen’s suppression order is what primarily adds to this veil of secrecy. This order was meant to protect Silvagni’s anonymity. It also ensured the safety of his family too, in particular his mother, Jo Silvagni. Silvagni’s counsel contended that the mental health consequences of his exposure to media coverage would be grave. They argued that even the possibility of his name being mentioned in newspaper articles could jeopardize his health.
Even without public reporting on the case, Silvagni’s mental health has taken a huge hit. The media has interpreted his set hospitalization needs over these times, including a need to be hospitalized in June 2024 and March 2025. He is now in the care of an experienced psychiatrist and still gets loads of support from his family.
The suit has broadened debate over the role of media in high-profile legal cases. Judge Michelle Quigley noted the differences in the focus on Silvagni’s case versus cases in other sports.
“If Mr Silvagni was connected to ping pong or table tennis there wouldn’t be such media interest,” – Judge Michelle Quigley
She said it was an example of how Australia’s infatuation with football trumped all other priorities. She focused on the sport’s role in influencing public perception and media narratives.
Elizabeth Ruddle KC, for the prosecution, stressed the need for high levels of accountability in these types of cases.
“Silvagni needs to face the music at some point,” – Elizabeth Ruddle KC
One of the key victories for Silvagni’s legal team was extending the suppression order beyond the end of the trial. This extension prevents him from being subjected to media attention while he deals with his unique situation. His defence barrister, David Hallowes SC, argued that the continuing media reporting would make Silvagni’s tenuous mental health condition worse.
As the case proceeds, debate remains on the meaning of the suppression orders and press participation in criminal trials. Striking the right balance between protecting private individuals’ rights and protecting the public interest is still a point of contention in the legal community.
