...unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in
Melbourne, Victoria...
OTOH, a real violation of expected semantics occurs in the New York State court system where the ultimate appellate court is the "Court of Appeals", the trial court of general jurisdiction is the "Supreme Court", and the intermediate appellate court between the two is the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division".
The US Supreme Court (federal) actually uses the same name scheme as New York and Canada. All district and appellate are limited geographically, with the supreme court being the only court of general jurisdiction (Amongst the fed. All US fed courts are technically limited). But some actions can still be brought directly to the SCOTUS such as disputes between states over land. So it is not purely an appellate court, hence the term supreme.
Then you have all the specialised courts, like the Family Courts, the Environmental Courts, the Court of Disputed Returns and many others that I can't remember off the top of my head.
And before the 1980's, you could technically appeal a high court decision to the Privy Council in the UK in certain circumstances, although I don't think that was ever used.
Talking about anachronistic ties to the UK, Australia should do something about all the UK citizens on the electoral roll. There are hundreds of thousands of non-Australian citizens (i.e UK citizens who arrived before 1984) who can vote in Australian elections. Really if you can’t decide if you want to be an Australian citizen after being here for 30 years then you really should stop voting in Australian elections!
This means there are two courts of appeal above the Victorian Supreme Court where this order was made. This is not about prejudicing the jury as these sorts of cases are usually decided by a judge with no jury in Australia.