High-Profile Accused Rapist Seeks Review of Identity Disclosure Decision
A high-profile man accused of rape is seeking a review of a recent decision that allowed media outlets to disclose his identity. The man, who has not been required to appear in court and remains on bail, is facing two counts of raping a woman in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, in October 2021.
Toowoomba Magistrate Clare Kelly ruled on Friday that the man had not provided sufficient justification for an exemption to changes in Queensland’s laws. These changes now permit the naming of individuals charged with sexual offenses who are yet to face trial. As a result, Ms. Kelly denied the man an ongoing non-publication order and set an interim order to block the publishing of his name until 4pm on Tuesday, unless the matter was taken to another court.
The man’s barrister, Andrew Hoare, appeared before the Brisbane Supreme Court to seek a judicial review of Ms. Kelly’s decision. Mr. Hoare argued that the magistrate had made errors of law, claiming that his client’s safety and mental health would be at risk if his identity was disclosed by media outlets. According to Mr. Hoare, there was an error of law in the failure to recognize the risk of substantial harm to any person, and Ms. Kelly had also erred by finding that the man had contributed to his own risk of harm through public statements about his mental health.
Justice Peter Applegarth, however, cautioned Mr. Hoare that his application might not be suitable for judicial review, as it appeared to be based on errors of fact rather than errors of law. Barrister Mark Plunkett, who acted on behalf of the man after Mr. Hoare left for Rockhampton, proposed filing an application for review by Thursday and suggested a hearing in late October.
The application for judicial review was opposed by John-Paul Cashen, the barrister for several media outlets, and Queensland police prosecutor Mark O’Brien. They asked why the matter couldn’t be heard promptly and why the accused man couldn’t have hired another barrister to ensure the application was ready on Tuesday. Mr. Hoare cited his preparation for another case in Rockhampton as the reason for his inability to obtain immediate representation. He explained that the arrangement he had with the man regarding fees made it difficult to secure counsel on short notice.
Given the circumstances, Justice Applegarth adjourned the matter for two hours so that all parties could receive a transcript of Ms. Kelly’s reasons for her decision. Unfortunately, no such material could be obtained that day. Mr. O’Brien stated that an attempt would be made to obtain a transcript by Wednesday, and Justice Applegarth, along with his own efforts, would make sure a transcript was available as a backup.
Justice Applegarth decided to adjourn the matter until October 26. He also temporarily suspended Ms. Kelly’s order, allowing the accused man’s name to be published until a judgment is made on whether or not to grant a judicial review.
Now, amid the legal proceedings, the accused man’s identity remains at the center of public discourse, with the media awaiting a final decision on whether the existing order prohibiting the publication of his name will be upheld or overturned. The case highlights the delicate balance between protecting the rights and identity of individuals accused of crimes and the public’s right to know. As this high-profile matter unfolds, it will undoubtedly spark further debates on the privacy rights of accused individuals and the transparency of the justice system.
