Suppression order extended for name of high-profile Qld man in extortion case

A magistrate has extended a non-publication order preventing the identification of a high-profile Queensland man at the centre of an alleged extortion threat.

The Cairns Magistrates Court has heard an accused man, who cannot be named, threatened to expose an alleged affair his former partner had with the married high-profile Queenslander in 2017.

The woman was threatened after her former partner "reneged" on a property settlement they had agreed after their relationship broke down, the court heard.

"The respondent found out about [the affair] by going through the defendant's private laptop and taking screenshots of her private messages," Magistrate Gelma Meoli said.

"His threat was to contact the married man, his wife and his place of employment.

"In addition, he threatened her financially with regard to a property settlement, saying the married man could pay a shortfall of $15,000."

Police prosecutor Senior Sergeant Maynard Marcum told the court the accused man also made a "supplementary threat" to expose a friend of the complainant as having had an affair.

Senior Sergeant Marcum argued details of the case, including the married man's name, should be suppressed until it was committed to a higher court, otherwise "it deprives the judge that would hear the case from making that final determination".

Media argued for publication

Andrew O'Brien KC made submissions on behalf of several media outlets, including the ABC, arguing the court did not have any basis on which to suppress the married man's identity.

"What Your Honour is being asked to do today … in my respectful submission, goes beyond the power that you have," Mr O'Brien said.

Mr O'Brien said the high-profile man had not sought to be heard in court about the non-publication order and that "it could only have been a deliberate decision that he has not gone and sought an injunction from the Supreme Court".

"It's unfathomable that he doesn't know this application is before the court," he said.

Mr O'Brien told the court the prosecution's decision to pursue suppression of the high-profile man's identity, and not the friend who was the subject of the secondary threat, "can only be explained by embarrassment".

"To achieve the purpose of protecting private confidential information belonging to the married man, this is the wrong path and the wrong court," Mr O'Brien said.

"Your Honour has confined jurisdiction which, on the authorities, is limited to protecting the complainant.

"There's no evidence that to identify the married man would tend to identify the complainant here."

The accused man's barrister, Brydie Bilic, argued the police were seeking a suppression "beyond the scope" of the court's power.

Order 'not based' on man's profile

Magistrate Meoli said if details of threats in extortion cases were not suppressed, "then victims of this type of offending will 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," she said.

Magistrate Meoli referred to a police affidavit, which was tendered but not read in open court, saying it "clearly demonstrates the need for the victim to be protected".

"I acknowledge the man in this application has a high public profile and this order is based on, not that fact," she said.

"It is based on the application of the law as it applies to any person whether they be high-profile or not."

Magistrate Meoli said her non-publication order was not made to prevent embarrassment, distress or reputational harm.

"The threat of exposing the married man goes to the very heart of the threat, in my view, and by not suppressing the married man's name, then offers the complainant no protection and, as I have already stated, enables the respondent to achieve publicly, the very nature of the charge of extortion," she said.

"If a suppression and non-publication order is not made, the complainant has no protection and the threat to cause the detriment by the respondent has been achieved by it being exposed publicly during a judicial process under the principle of open justice."

Magistrate Meoli made her decision after closing the court to all but accredited media at the start of the hearing.

The case is due to return to court on July 28.