Identity of high-profile Queensland man drawn into extortion case to remain secret after court ruling

A legal challenge against the suppression order over the identity of a high-profile Queensland man has been thrown out. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP View image in fullscreen A legal challenge against the suppression order over the identity of a high-profile Queensland man has been thrown out. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP Identity of high-profile Queensland man drawn into extortion case to remain secret after court ruling Man – referred to as MM by court – will keep his identity hidden after legal challenge against suppression dismissed Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast The identity of a high-profile Queensland man drawn into a Cairns extortion case will remain secret, after the state’s supreme court threw out a legal challenge against a suppression order. The man – referred to as MM by the court – was drawn into an extortion case earlier this year. He is not a party to the case and is not accused of any offence. In June, magistrate Gelma Meoli ordered his identity be suppressed to avoid identifying the female alleged extortion victim after an application by the Queensland-police-commissioner" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="195184" data-entity-type="organization">Queensland Police Commissioner, Brett Pointing. Media organisations applied for a judicial review of the decision, arguing that the court did not have the power to suppress his identity. But Justice James Henry dismissed the challenge in a one-minute hearing on Friday afternoon, ruling that the suppression order was “necessary to secure the proper administration of justice”. He said it would deter future prospective complainants from coming forward, by allowing the “feared part” of the alleged extortion threat to occur. “Future prospective complainants would likely perceive the nature of the exposure featured by the complainant here was not merely exposure of her identity but also exposure of the other persons named in the threat.” Henry said “substantial and probably sensational publicity of MM’s identity in connection with the case would occur in the absence of a non-publication order extending to MM”. Revealing his identity would impose “embarrassment and emotional pain” on the complainant, who would bear the burden of knowing it was her who was the source of the information and that she could have avoided imposing the pain and embarrassment on MM by complying with the extortion demand, Henry said. He ruled that without an NPO, the alleged purpose of the extortion would be achieved. Explore more on these topics Queensland Australian law news Share Reuse this content