A judicial review was held on Friday in the Supreme Court in Cairns to examine a court-ordered suppression of the identity of a prominent Queensland man involved in a high-profile extortion case. The review challenges an earlier ruling by an acting magistrate that prohibited public disclosure of the identities of three individuals connected to the case: the defendant, the complainant, and the man alleged to have had an extramarital affair with the complainant.

The man, referred to as MM by court order, is married and accused of having an affair with the woman at the centre of the extortion charge, which relates to an incident in 2017. He is neither a defendant nor a witness in the case but has been protected by the suppression order despite no direct involvement in the alleged offence. The woman’s identity is protected under Queensland’s domestic violence laws, as is the defendant’s, due to their public association with the complainant. However, Magistrate Gelma Meoli extended the anonymity order to cover MM’s identity as well, despite evidence presented that the two did not live or work together and that revealing the connection would not necessarily expose sensitive details in a way that would justify suppression.

Andrew O’Brien KC, representing several media outlets including The Australian, The Courier-Mail, The Cairns Post, Brisbane Times, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, argued that the extension of the gag order to MM exceeded the legal purpose of protecting victims and could impede open justice. O’Brien stated that such suppression orders are typically aimed at safeguarding victims or witnesses from harm or intimidation and preventing a "chilling effect" on reporting crimes like extortion or blackmail. In this instance, no evidence was given that MM was threatened or at risk, nor was his anonymity justified by any other legal rationale.

Opposing the media bid, Queensland Police Service engaged Jonathon Horton KC to defend the magistrate’s suppression order. Horton told the court that the magistrate had considered affidavits highlighting the complainant’s distress about possible public exposure, which may deter victims from coming forward. He emphasized the potential impact of widely publicizing the identities involved, including that of MM, in sensitive cases involving alleged domestic extortion.

The media’s efforts to name MM have been at odds with the suppression order, which has at times been difficult to enforce. In May, following a bail hearing in Cairns, defence lawyer Bridie Bilic inadvertently revealed MM’s involvement, and an unrelated individual in the courtroom began blogging the man’s identity. Although the court subsequently issued suppression orders, the information had already circulated online.

Justice Henry reserved his decision on the matter following the proceedings, with a ruling expected in the coming weeks. The case raises significant questions about the balance between open justice and protecting individuals’ privacy in sensitive criminal matters.