Why we cannot name the high-profile man at the centre of an extortion case

The name of a high-profile married man at the centre of an extortion case has been suppressed. (ABC News) Link copiedShareShare articleThere is a highly secretive and unusual court case playing out behind closed doors in Far North Queensland involving a prominent married man and his alleged affair, a non-publication order we are not allowed to see and an allegation of extortion we cannot tell you much about. The case is the talk of legal, political, media and business circles around the state. But if anyone publicly names this high-profile Queenslander, they risk being charged with contempt of court. This is a story of how a regional magistrates court became the centre of a mysterious high-stakes legal drama that raises questions over the fundamental principle of open justice, the media's right to fairly report what happens in court, and whether powerful people are using their influence over public institutions to protect this high profile man from embarrassment. It was quite by accident that this case came to the media's attention at all. Two weeks ago on a busy Friday morning at the Cairns Magistrates Court, ABC News reporter Conor Byrne was sitting in the arrests court as bail applications for drug matters and dangerous driving offences were being heard. About 11am, he noticed something strange. A highly regarded local defence barrister, Brydie Bilic, and experienced criminal defence solicitor Michael Finch had unexpectedly appeared in the courtroom. The pair was representing a man in an unlisted matter that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere. Brydie Bilic and Michael Finch leave the Cairns Courthouse. (ABC News: Conor Byrne) Ms Bilic told the court that her client had been charged with extorting his ex-partner after she allegedly had a romantic affair with a Queensland public figure. She explicitly named the high-profile man in open court — a name that took everyone in the room by surprise. Ms Bilic was there to urgently address some strange and "overreaching" bail conditions that essentially stopped her client from speaking freely, even to his own lawyers, about the facts of the case and, she feared, were potentially only there to protect this powerful person. She described it to the court as constituting a "gag order". Acting Magistrate Gelma Meoli ordered new bail conditions. But the restrictions on this case were just getting started. Noting the presence of media and members of the public in court, Ms Bilic raised the issue of a non-publication order to help protect the identities of the defendant and the complainant. "I've done some careful research into extortion charges," she said. "The complainant's name will not be published in the media, although the other facts, of course, can." This would mean the high-profile man's name could be reported. A junior prosecutor appearing for the police agreed, but the acting magistrate was not so sure. "Actually, I might just stand down with respect to this, just for a moment," she said, leaving the courtroom. While she was gone, a member of the public who had been listening to the proceedings took out his phone and started posting online about the high-profile man. Word was already out, but that did not stop the courts from trying to put it back in. What transpired from here is why some top legal minds are scratching their heads over the case. A senior barrister with some knowledge of the events told ABC Investigations he thought the court proceedings were "very unusual". When Acting Magistrate Meoli returned to the bench after an absence of about 40 minutes, she acted swiftly. She immediately adjourned the matter to a less crowded courtroom, put an interim blanket suppression order over the entire case, and told the junior prosecutor standing before her to ask a more senior prosecutor to take over. The ABC's reporter continued to track the case. As the afternoon rolled on, Ms Bilic and a new senior prosecutor continued to agree with each other that it was only necessary to de-identify the defendant and female complainant, and not the prominent married man. He was not an alleged victim himself, nor a witness, and therefore was not a party to the court proceedings. His name, however, was relevant in the factual context of the alleged affair with the complainant. "He's part of the allegations," she argued, before adjourning the matter until the following Monday and making an interim suppression order that included the high-profile man and any allegations that involved him as part of the extortion charge. She urged the prosecutor to obtain some further instructions. "I'm not telling you what to do," she said, before highlighting specific cases that she recommended he might read up on over the weekend. "I just want to out of an abundance of caution give you that opportunity." That night, the courtroom drama spilled outside. The man who had posted on social media was sitting at home when he received a phone call from a seni

Why we cannot name the high-profile man at the centre of an extortion case

Key takeaways

More in international