Adelaide ‘sex pest’ accused lawyer secrecy risks ‘eroding open justice principle’, top court hears

A well-known barrister accused of sexual misconduct has seen their high-powered legal team flag an 11th hour formal bid for a secrecy order over his identity.

The barrister’s high powered legal team spent all of Friday arguing they weren’t seeking a secrecy order - before changing tact at the 11th hour. Picture: iStock

Keeping secret the identity of a well-known barrister accused of sexual misconduct against a junior female colleague would erode the vital “open justice” rule, a court has heard.

The lawyer, who cannot be named for legal reasons, allegedly made “inappropriate and uninvited physical and sexual contact … or advances” to a young solicitor in 2020.

The barrister, who denies wrongdoing and is not charged with any crimes, is attempting to keep his identity secret after disputing misconduct charges the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner laid in 2022.

But in an 11th hour twist, the man’s high-powered legal team flagged a formal bid for a secrecy order over his identity after earlier arguing he wasn’t making such an application.

The Court of Appeal on Friday heard his attempts to keep his identity secret would “circumvent” the legal system’s most fundamental “open justice” law.

The court heard his secrecy attempts came despite being named in parliament last year and colleagues knowing his identity, meaning “the cat’s out of the bag”.

Frances Nelson, KC, for LPCC Anthony Keane, told the court the barrister’s legal arguments were “smoke and mirrors” that “undermined” and “eroded” basic rights of transparency.

“It would be incompatible with the concept of open justice,” she said.

“Disciplinary hearings are there to maintain confidence in the justice system, therefore they should be open and accessible to the public with transparency of … proceedings.”

Any secrecy decision, she said, would create an “unfortunate” legal precedent that would make it easier for anyone facing misconduct charges to hide their identity.

“It would be dangerous for this court to accept a lowering of the threshold,” she said.

Ms Nelson, who successfully sought a suppression order on the victim’s identity, said many other professions did not have any such confidentiality privileges.

State government Solicitor General Mike Wait, SC, for Attorney-General Kyam Maher, said the “open justice” was fundamental and raised concerns about “unintended consequences”.

The court heard the man, known only as Practitioner A, was at risk of professional damage and the effects on his mental health if his name was published.

Dick Whitington, KC - who had argued he wasn’t seeking a suppression order but wanted the identity secret through other civil means - flagged a new legal direction late on Friday after last minute advice, the details of which cannot be reported for legal reasons.

Mr Whitington had earlier told the court The Advertiser’s original “sex pest” description was “scandalous, sensationalist and unfair”.

“Such scandalous and unfair publicity doesn’t justify the argument that all bets are off,” he said.

The barrister, who did not attend the hearing, has declined to comment.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, Justice Laura Stein and Justice Chris Bleby will hear further argument next week on whether the lawyer’s name can be published.