Bid to unmask high-profile man embroiled in extortion case

The identity of a high-profile Queensland man named as part of an extortion case will not be revealed after a magistrate ruled to uphold suppression orders.

A Cairns magistrate on Monday upheld orders proposed by the prosecution relating to the case, meaning identifying details of the allegations cannot be published.

The high-profile man is not facing any charges, but his name has been mentioned in the case of another man accused of extortion.

An interim non-publication order was placed over the case by a Cairns magistrate.

Several media outlets, including this masthead, were represented by Andrew O’Brien KC and Ben Cohen, who argued the court should be open, and for the non-publication order to be lifted.

O’Brien said it was unfathomable the high-profile man did not know the application was under foot.

He said the man had other legal remedies in relation to the order, and given there had been no Supreme Court injunction relating to his privacy, the magistrate should only take that as a deliberate decision.

O’Brien said while one might have sympathy for what could be accepted as intrusive media reporting, that alone was not a basis for the order.

“What your honour is being asked to do is make orders to alleviate … embarrassment, distress, reputational harm, or some other collateral issue … but that is just not a basis upon which this court will grant relief,” he said.

O’Brien submitted there was no evidence that lifting the suppression and identifying the married man would in turn identify the complainant.

Defence barrister Brydie Bilic said the suppression was beyond the scope of power, and proposed the magistrate instead impose an order over her client and the complainant.

Magistrate Gelma Meoli said she acknowledged the man was high profile, and the order she made was not based on that fact, it was based on the application of law as it applies to any person.

She said non-publication orders were made in blackmail and some extortion cases, and if threats were not suppressed, then victims of this type of offending would not come forward with their complaints.

For the proper administration of justice, a victim must be able to come forward and make a complaint and expect to be protected, Meoli said.

“The orders that can be made are not to be made to protect any party of embarrassment or reputational consequences because that would be an incorrect application of the law,” she said.

She said if a suppression order was not made, then the alleged threat by the accused had “been achieved by it being exposed publicly during a judicial process under the principle of open justice”.

Media outlets intend to apply for a judicial review of the decision.

Earlier in the proceeding, police prosecutor Maynard Marcum asked for the court to be closed, except for accredited media.

O’Brien said closing the court was the most drastic response a court could offer to this sort of order.

He submitted it was inappropriate, and the magistrate could have taken a number of less-intrusive measures.

“The problem with the argument, either the basis on which to close the court has been engaged, or it hasn’t, it’s not something that’s done in terms of a half-measure,” O’Brien said. Bilic also agreed with the submissions.

Magistrate Meoli ultimately ruled to close the court, leaving only accredited media. One member in the public gallery said it was disgusting as they left.

“A number of … the contents and names of persons have been identified in court and over the course of, from the time of when it was first mentioned up until last night there have been reporting in such a way as to go against the proper administration of justice,” the magistrate said.

When asked to provide reasons for her decision on closing the court, Meoli said there were previous cases that included blackmail and extortion in certain cases, and suppression and NPOs had been made.

“That is to protect the victims who make these complaints because if there is no protection to the proper administration of justice, and no orders of the like are made, then victims would not complain about this type of offending because they’re offered no protection,” she said.

The extortion case remains before the Cairns Magistrates Court.

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.