A high-profile man charged with two counts of rape still cannot be publicly named

The identity of a high-profile man charged with two counts of rape will continue to remain a secret for now, a magistrate has ordered.

The identity of a high-profile man charged with two counts of rape remains will remain a secret for a while longer, despite new legislation allowing accused rapists to be named in Queensland.

The man, who cannot be named legally after his lawyers were given an interim non-publication order last Friday, will keep his anonymity until a magistrates court can hear the primary application.

Police charged the man with two counts of rape earlier this year over an alleged incident in Toowoomba dating back to 2021.

He has not entered a plea.

A magistrate has ordered a high profile man charged with rape will have his name withheld until a further court date.

The suppression application follows the Queensland government scrapping laws prohibiting the identification of people charged with rape or prescribed sexual offences before they are committed to stand trial.

An interim suppression order was put in place last week, preventing media outlets from naming him.

Those laws expired on October 3, 2023.

In a decision published last Friday, September 29, Queensland Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth said the man intended to apply for a suppression order under the new laws “as soon as practicable”.

“The applicant seeks a temporary order from this court to preserve the status quo until his application for an interim order in the Magistrates Court can be heard and determined,” Justice Applegarth said.

Justice Applegarth said the committal proceeding had “attracted publicity”, leading to “substantial risk” the high-profile man’s identity would be published as early as Tuesday.

The matter returned to Toowoomba Magistrates Court on Thursday where the man’s lawyer Rowan King said he was waiting for further medical reports to support his primary non-publication application.

Magistrate Kay Philipson has allowed the interim suppression to remain.

However, the court was told Mr King had failed to file the necessary notice of application, which would alert accredited media that a non-publication order had been lodged.

Director of Public Prosecutor prosecutor Nicole Friedewald said she’d also only received Mr King’s application notice 15 minutes before the hearing on Thursday.

Mr King said he had a “misunderstanding” with his application and appologised to the court.

Ms Philipson said it was “hugely inconvenient” Mr King hadn’t filed the appropriate application, especially when the new legislation clearly notes what’s required under the act.

She said the court registry was even forced to chase Mr King for the relevant documents ahead of Thursday’s hearing.

“I told you to comply with the notice direction, I don’t know what part you’re not getting,” Ms Philipson said.

“This would otherwise be a short matter.

“And yet the busy court had to get their head across everything in a very short period of time because you were unable to ... comply with the practice direction.”

Ms Friedewald objected to the interim order stating Mr King had failed to show why it should be granted.

The court was told Mr King had submitted a letter from the man’s psychologist, who had inferred his mental health was at risk if his name was to be published.

Mr King said the psychologist is expected to provide a more detailed report before the primary application is heard on October 13.

“That email really contains little evidence that can be relied on by your honour,” Ms Friedewald said.

“There’s no evidence on how that psychologist has arrived on the evidence he has.”

Ms Friedewald said the complainant also had no objection to the man’s name being published.

Ms Philipson granted the interim application on Thursday.

“There’s compelling matters that need to be considered including the public interest and the primacy of public justice and the views and wishes of any submissions of a complaint or any vulnerabilities of a complainant or defendant and potential to prejudice any future proceedings,” Ms Philipson said.

She said the primary application, which will be heard on October 13, should be given “proper consideration” and the man should be “given the benefit the status quo” of anonymity.

The court was previously told “thousands” of pages worth of phone data had been reviewed by prosecutors.

Another 800 pages of phone records still needed to be reviewed, crown prosecutor Nicole Friedewald said.

Changes to the law

The change was one of the major recommendations from the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce to bring Queensland’s laws in line with other states and territories.

Alongside the Northern Territory, Queensland was the only state or territory with such a protection in place.

The specific change removes restrictions in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 that prohibit the identification of those charged with rape or offences such as attempt to commit rape, assault with intent to commit rape and sexual assault.

Those accused of these sexual offences are now treated the same as individuals charged with any other offence, with details about their identity able to be published.

Exceptions apply if it would identify or tend to lead to the identification of the complainant.

Ms Philipson said the change in legislation is something that needed to be considered when granting the interim non-publication order.