The identity of a prominent figure, facing charges for the alleged sexual assault of a woman, will be kept confidential in the meantime, due to a sustained non-disclosure injunction against the perpetrator’s name. This development unfolded after lawyers representing the man initiated legal proceedings in Brisbane’s Supreme Court, just days after a magistrate repealed an existing non-disclosure order that veiled the defendant’s identity.
The accused is facing two counts of sexual assault, charges that emerged from an incident in Toowoomba in 2021. Until recently, Queensland laws shrouded those accused of such heinous crimes from the public eye until they were committed to trial. The state government, however, annulled portions of a crucial statute, revoking this protection.
Nonetheless, the lawyers of the accused exploitatively took advantage of this change before it was enacted and managed to secure a non-publication order from the Supreme Court that would protect their client from identification until arguments regarding the preservation of the order were deliberated in Magistrates Court.
Following an exhaustive hearing at Toowoomba Magistrates Court on Friday, the non-disclosure order was repealed by Magistrate Clare Kelly. She concluded that the justification for maintaining the order was insufficient and the evidence presented to defend the accused did not prove that this order was indispensable to guarantee his safety.
However, during Tuesday’s hearing at the Supreme Court, the defendant’s barrister, Andrew Hoare, contended that Magistrate Kelly had erroneously assumed there was no impending risk to anyone else. He further argued that irrelevant matters were considered by the Magistrate while making her decision. The legal teams found themselves at an impasse, as the transcript and audio file of the proceedings were not made available.
Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth prompted for the prompt resolution of the matter, questioning the delays and adjourned the case until October 26, and maintained the temporary stay of the non-publication order until then.
Moreover, on Friday, it was claimed by the defendant’s attorneys that revealing their client’s identity in public might lead to a substantial risk of self-harm. Robert Anderson KC, representing multiple media houses, highlighted in court that the defendant did not personally testify before the magistrate, but instead was represented by his solicitors and psychologist – suggesting that the man was ‘silent’ on the matter.
In addition, he contended the defendant was ready to disclose his narrative while concurrently seeking the court’s protection from public disclosure and impeding transparent justice. In his submission, Mr Anderson stated, “The defendant has voluntarily thrust himself into a public spectacle, which will inevitably lead to further exposure and require him to rationalize all of his circumstances.”
