A Queensland magistrate has suppressed the name of a man with a “high public profile” during an ongoing extortion case in Cairns.
The man – referred to in court as MM – is not a party to the case, which was back before the Cairns magistrates court on Monday.
MM’s conduct was allegedly used as the basis of an extortion attempt against a far north Queensland woman by her former partner.
Sen Sgt Maynard Marcum applied for the suppression order to protect MM on behalf of the Queensland police commissioner, Brett Pointing.
The magistrate Gelma Meoli ordered the court to be closed, except for accredited media.
Barrister Andrew O’Brien, representing media organisations, opposed the broader order suppressing identities beyond the alleged victim of the attempted extortion and the alleged perpetrator. O’Brien argued that naming MM would not reveal the woman’s identity.
He argued the magistrate lacked the power to make an order protecting any other party, citing a string of previous cases which he said found that a suppression order could only be made by “necessity”.
Suppression orders were only necessary to protect the alleged victim’s identity, the court was told on Monday.
Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email“In a blackmail case, the complainant and the defendant share the guilty secret, whereas in an extortion case, it’s different; it’s one person revealing another person’s guilty secret, to which they’re not both a party,” O’Brien said.
The alleged extortionist allegedly gained information by taking photographs of messages on the woman’s computer, the court was told. He also allegedly made a “supplementary threat” regarding conduct by another friend of the woman.
O’Brien said it was “curious and telling” that the police applied for a suppression order that only protected the identity of MM and not the friend.
“If this were a genuine application directed at protecting complainants … coming forward, then our friend [Marcum] would also be seeking an order to protect that information.
“The election to pursue suppression of [MM] as opposed to the other woman … can only be explained by embarrassment.”
O’Brien argued that MM could have made an application in the supreme court if he believed his right to privacy was at risk, or he could have instructed a solicitor to represent him in the magistrates court.
“What your honour is being asked to do is to make orders to alleviate or remove empowerment, embarrassment, distress, reputational harm, or some other collateral issue for [MM], but that is just not a basis upon which this court could grant relief,” he said.
The police prosecutor, Marcum, argued the final decision should be left to the committal hearing; and if a suppression order was not made on Monday, “it deprives the judge that will hear the matter from making that final determination”.
The magistrate determined that identifying MM would achieve the purpose of the alleged extortion and discourage future complainants from coming forward.
“I acknowledge that [MM] in this application has a high public profile and this order is based on not that fact,” Meoli said.
“It is based on the application of the law as it applies to any person, whether they be high profile or not.”
The matter was scheduled to return to Cairns magistrates court on 28 July.
