Legislative change to try to curb the increasing use of suppression orders in Victorian courts does not appear to have reduced the number of orders being issued, Melbourne's Press Club has heard.

The rapid growth in the use of suppression orders was discussed at the club's "State of Suppression" lunchtime debate.

Suppression orders are issued by judges and magistrates to prevent the publication of sensitive details that could derail a court case. They are also used to protect the identity of witnesses.

But Fairfax investigations editor Michael Bachelard told the debate suppression orders were being issued far too often.

"It's easy to find examples of silly suppression orders," he said.

He described one suppression order from the Magistrates' Court, prohibiting any publication that referred to the defendant in the case, as well as any mention of a well-known AFL footballer.

"No doubt the order was breached about 40 or 50 times a day for its entire four-month duration," Bachelard said.

Justice Simon Whelan told the panel the recent introduction of the Open Courts Act had not led to judges issuing fewer suppression orders.

"In Victoria we know how many orders we make and the number has not gone down," he said.

"We really want to have a situation where we make very few orders ... we could have less than we do."

He said at times orders were issued because judges were defensive or overly cautious.

"There is a problem about orders being made in relation to matters that are already addressed by legislation or the sub judice rule," he said.

Justice Whelan said the number of suppression orders issued by the Victorian Supreme Court was comparable with the Supreme Court of New South Wales, but there was a lack of reliable data from other jurisdictions.

Suppression order data withheld, academic says

Melbourne University academic Jason Bosland's research on the use of suppression orders in Victoria contributed to the drafting of the Open Courts Act.

He traced the use of suppression orders for five years until 2012, and found there were 1,501 suppression orders issued in Victorian courts over that time.

Mr Bosland wants to measure the impact of the new legislation, but the information he needs is no longer available.

"I have found it very difficult to get access to information from the courts," he said.

"The research that I conducted a few years ago looked at suppression orders that were made between 2008 and 2012, and revealed some really interesting trends and patterns and problems with suppression orders.

"What I want to do is repeat that study in light of the Open Courts Act."

The Victorian County Court has allowed Mr Bosland to analyse the suppression orders issued by its judges, but other courts have not granted access to their data.

"From what we have heard today ... it would appear that the number of orders hasn't reduced, so that is concerning," he said.

He said the courts should find out whether the act was functioning as expected.

"The legislation was introduced to deal with certain really clearly identified problems with suppression orders," he said.

"That included the fact that many orders didn't contain end dates or sunset clauses, they were poorly drafted, many were made for reasons which perhaps weren't justified, and you could see that from the information in the order itself."

Internet may force trial system overhaul

Justice Whelan also told the debate the trial system may have to be reformed to deal with the vast amounts of information now available to juries on the internet.

"In the future, at some point ... we may have to confront the situation ... where we assume everything is known, and we need to construct a trial system that can cope with that," he said.

"I don't think we are at that point but it may be that we will be there one day in the foreseeable future."

But former Supreme Court Judge Phillip Cummins said the jury system was still robust despite the information jurors can now access online.

"I think it is much healthier to have a court system that actually faces reality and deals with it by giving directions to a jury, than by proceeding ostrich-like and not acknowledging the reality," he said.

Media encouraged to launch more suppression order challenges

Justice Whelan told the debate the Chief Justice had asked the Victorian Bar whether its members would be willing to appear in court pro bono to oppose the making of suppression orders.

"To take up the role that once upon a time media lawyers did occupy," he said.

"I think that's a potentially significant initiative ... I think it's a very good idea."

He said the media never appeared in hearings to argue against the making of suppression orders any more.

"I think that's a problem, the absence of a contradictor is a real issue," he said.

Mr Bosland said he approved of the idea.

"I like the idea in principle and I would say that there is a problem with media not challenging suppression orders as often as they once did," he said.

"So what you get is orders going through which perhaps should not have been made."