Markets 
Updated ,first published
A Queensland Supreme Court judge will now deliberate on whether to reveal the identity of a high-profile man linked to an extortion case in the state’s far north, after a day-long hearing where media fought against a non-publication order.
The man’s identity has been under suppression since the matter, involving an alleged extramarital affair, came to light earlier this year. He has been referred to in court as “MM”.
The high-profile man is not facing any charges himself, but his name was aired as part of another man’s case in the Cairns Magistrates Court relating to an alleged extortion.
Several media outlets – including this masthead – on Friday fought to have the non-publication order lifted over the case, which has been shrouded in secrecy for weeks.
Andrew O’Brien KC, representing the media outlets, told the court the law did not provide the principle for MM to have the protection of anonymity.
The only way MM could be protected would be if he was a victim, or a witness in the case, he said.
Justice James Henry asked O’Brien whether MM was considered to be a victim as well. O’Brien answered that MM was not a victim of the offence, and the alleged threat was not made to him.
O’Brien said the complainant had nothing to fear because she would not be identified.
Henry put the scenario to O’Brien that if a complainant went to police knowing a second person could be identified, this would be a deterrence to reporting.
“It’s the effect on future victims and them being deterred in coming forward,” Henry said.
O’Brien said MM also had the avenue to seek an injunction over the case.
In his arguments, O’Brien referred to several previous cases involving extortion and blackmail, and suppression orders.
One of those cases was that of former federal Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann, who was facing rape charges in a Queensland court, and whose identity was suppressed until an order was lifted by Justice Peter Applegarth in October 2023.
The decision to name Lehrmann came a little over three weeks after changes to Queensland laws allowed alleged rapists to be named before they are committed to stand trial. Lehrmann was unsuccessful in his bid to keep his identity secret after the law changes.
O’Brien also referred to the case of Hogan v Hinch, where broadcaster Derryn Hinch was charged for naming two sex offenders. O’Brien said the suppression order was considered necessary for the proper administration of justice.
The suppression order in the Cairns case was upheld by Acting Magistrate Gelma Meoli last month.
Meoli told the court that non-publication orders were made in blackmail and extortion cases, as victims might not come forward with complaints if the details of threats were exposed through court proceedings.
Brydie Bilic, representing the defendant, told the court on Friday that in making the suppression decision, Meoli had repeatedly invited the prosecution to take instructions regarding the non-publication order.
Bilic said once the effectively blanket interim suppression order was put in place, the order was unable to be obtained from the registry because there was fear its release may constitute a breach of the order.
She said it had become a “Kafkaesque situation”.
Jonathan Horton KC, who was brought in to represent the Commissioner of Police in the matter, said the acting magistrate had before her affidavits raising matters concerning the complainant.
“You’ll see there, on the record … the complainant’s distress,” he said.
He told the court there were well established categories in blackmail or extortion cases where suppressions were used, and one of the focuses was on not deterring complainants from coming forward.
Cloe Read is the crime and court reporter at Brisbane Times.Connect via X or email.From our partners
Read the full article here
