Queensland’s ‘worst kept secret’: Legal showdown looms over extraordinary suppression battle in extortion case

What began as an alleged domestic violence extortion case in a regional Queensland courtroom has exploded into one of the state’s most extraordinary legal battles over secrecy, open justice and freedom of the press with a Supreme Court showdown this Friday set to determine whether sweeping suppression orders can stand.

The high-profile case returns to the Cairns Magistrates Court on Tuesday before shifting to the Supreme Court on Friday, where a handful of media organisations will challenge the suppression orders that have shrouded the proceedings in secrecy for almost two months.

In the latest twist, a second suppression order has now been made — this time preventing publication of the identity of a 35-year-old Cairns content creator accused of repeatedly breaching the original order by publishing suppressed information and allegedly sending identifying details to journalists.

The legal fight has become so notorious that media law expert Associate Professor Jason Bosland described it as Queensland’s “worst-kept secret” while warning the case has become a significant test of the principle of open justice.

“It is a blackmail case and historically that’s been one of the circumstances where a suppression order can be made,” the University of Melbourne academic said.

“The suppression order is granted to prevent the blackmailer achieving their aim. Otherwise the secret they’re threatening to disclose will be revealed in open court and then published in the media.”

The case centres on allegations that a man attempted to extort his former partner during a property settlement after discovering evidence of an alleged affair she had years earlier with a prominent married Queensland figure.

Prosecutors allege the defendant threatened to expose the alleged relationship by contacting the married man, his wife and his workplace unless the woman accepted a financial settlement that was $15,000 lower than originally agreed.

The defendant has been charged with extortion involving domestic violence and remains on bail.

The prominent married man is not accused of any wrongdoing and is not a party to the criminal proceedings.

The saga first surfaced in the Cairns Magistrates Court on May 29, when defence barrister Brydie Bilic named the high-profile man in open court while arguing against her client’s restrictive bail conditions.

Before any suppression order had been made, a content creator who was in court published the man’s identity online, triggering a chain of events that has since become one of the country’s most closely watched legal battles over court secrecy.

Acting Magistrate Gelma Meoli later imposed a broad suppression order covering the identities of the complainant, the defendant and the high-profile man, ruling that revealing his name would allow the alleged extortionist to “achieve publicly the very nature of the charge of extortion”.

She stressed the order was based on protecting the administration of justice rather than shielding the man from embarrassment because of his public profile.

Media organisations have taken the opposite view, arguing the courts should operate openly and that suppression orders should only extend as far as is strictly necessary.

Lawyers representing several outlets have argued the Magistrates Court lacked the power to suppress the identity of someone who is neither a complainant, defendant nor witness, and that preventing embarrassment is not a lawful basis for such an order.

“The issue here is whether the scope of the order should extend to non-publication of the married man’s name,” said Associate Professor Bosland.

He said blackmail cases had long been recognised as circumstances where suppression orders could be justified because courts should not become the vehicle through which an alleged blackmailer achieves the very outcome they are accused of threatening.

However, he questioned whether the order had been extended further than necessary.

“If it hadn’t been the (married man) that it is, and it had been a local butcher or something, would the magistrate have halted proceedings and said, ‘Hold on, do we need to extend the suppression order?’ Probably not,” he said.

“That may not be the case, but it creates at least a perception that he is receiving favourable treatment by the Magistrates Court.”

Another issue likely to hang over Friday’s hearing is whether the suppression order remains effective after months of intense online speculation.

Associate Professor said courts had previously found suppression orders could cease to be legally necessary if they became futile.

“The cat is out of the bag,” he said, adding the court would ultimately need to decide whether the order still had “any work to do” given the extent of information circulating online.

However, he cautioned against assuming widespread online discussion automatically rendered a suppression order ineffective.

“There is a big difference between publishing online and publishing on the front page of mainstream media publications or on the nightly news bulletin,” he said.

An unusual feature of the case is that journalists have been unable to obtain a copy of the suppression order itself.

Associate Professor Bosland described that as “extraordinary”, saying court orders are ordinarily public documents and should generally be available without revealing the very information they are designed to protect.

The extortion prosecution is due back before the Cairns Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

Three days later, Justice James Henry will hear the media’s judicial review in the Supreme Court, with proceedings set to begin in closed court before submissions are heard on whether they should remain closed.