Judge lashes lawyers for high-profile rape accused fighting to keep ID secret

A high-profile man accused of rape has been granted a fourth interim suppression to prevent the publication of his name, while his lawyers prepare for a hearing in eight days.

Lawyers for a high-profile man accused of rape have been have been asked to explain why they are unable to proceed with a hearing they themselves requested be brought on “as promptly as possible”.

Justice Peter Applegarth on Tuesday said the Brisbane Supreme Court had set aside three hours to hear an application for a judicial review of a decision made by a Toowoomba magistrate on Friday.

Magistrate Clare Kelly last week heard the man’s application for a non-publication order in which he sought to prevent himself from being identified as the high-profile man charged with two counts of rape.

But she dismissed the application, finding it was not necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice.

Despite the decision, the man’s lawyers immediately asked for a further interim suppression order until 4pm Tuesday to allow them time to seek a judicial review of the decision.

Justice Applegarth on Tuesday said the man’s lawyer Rowan King had emailed the Supreme Court at 3.43pm on Monday asking the court to hear a review “as promptly as possible”.

Lawyer Rowan King had asked for a hearing “as promptly as possible”. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Tertius Pickard

But when the matter was called on Tuesday morning, defence barrister Andrew Hoare said he was not prepared to proceed with a hearing the court had allocated time for.

“We aren’t in a position to do so because we simply don’t have … reasons in any form whether recorded or transcribed, we will have them by the conclusion of the week,” Mr Hoare said.

Justice Applegarth was critical of the situation, pointing out that the lawyers had been in court for the decision, had heard her honour’s reasons and were able to take notes.

“I just don’t have sufficient notes of those reasons, I’m not trying to delay,” Mr Hoare said.

“There is an aspect of the application which would be part of an error of law and would be determined by how her honour framed one of the reasons.”

Justice Applegarth responded: “Well that’s interesting but you were there, your solicitor was there, you were presumably able to take notes, the respondents were there, the media entities were there.”

Mr Hoare said his application for judicial review would argue that Magistrate Kelly erred in her finding that the defendant was not at a substantial risk of harm if an order was not made.

He said the draft he had prepared also submitted her honour had taken into account “extraneous or irrelevant” matters in making her decision.

Mr Hoare said the application was yet to be filed and said he also had commitments to appear in another case in Rockhampton from Wednesday, adding to the need for the case to be adjourned to another day.

“Well there’s 1200 barristers at the Queensland Bar,” Justice Applegarth said.

“I get an email yesterday evening at 3.43pm from your instructing solicitor that read ‘the applicant is seeking directions in order for the court to determine the matter as promptly as possible’.

“What I’m exploring is why it can’t be promptly decided, apart from I understand it’s always good to have continuity of counsel but apart from the inconvenience of counsel, why can’t it be heard and determined?”

Barrister Andrew Hoare. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Tertius Pickard

Mr Hoare responded: “The arrangements I have with the applicant in respect of how my fees are to be paid would make it difficult to arrange counsel at short notice.”

Justice Applegarth further questioned if arrangements could be made to allow the matter to proceed today.

“Whatever difficulty your instructing solicitor had taking notes, because not everyone will do Pittman Shorthand, and whatever latitude you might want to fine tune an application, the magistrate either made an error in issue for judicial review or the magistrate didn’t,” he said.

“So you’ve had since Friday to prepare an application for judicial review…”.

Justice Applegarth said there were practice directions in the Magistrates Court which allowed the media to record in open court for the purposes of accuracy.

He made orders allowing media parties to the application to provide recordings of the Magistrate’s decision to their legal representatives appearing in the case for the parties to use to prepare for the matter.

After court resumed on Tuesday, the man’s lawyers said the multiple audio recordings provided by accredited media outlets were not of sufficient quality for them to be used to create a transcript.

The court heard in the break, legal representatives including for the Queensland Police Service had ordered official court transcripts and recordings that would subsequently be used to prepare the application for judicial review and written submissions.

The case was adjourned with a hearing listed for Thursday next week.

The man was granted a further interim suppression order preventing the publication of his name until the hearing – the fourth he has been granted in various courts in the past three weeks.