Crikey lawyer deletes ‘act of abuse’ tweet after legal threats

Prominent lawyer and Crikey contributor Michael Bradley has deleted a tweet accusing defence lawyers of ‘an act of abuse’ for seeking a sexual assault complainant’s phone records.

Lawyer Michael Bradley. Picture: Brendan Radke

Prominent lawyer and Crikey contributor Michael Bradley has quietly deleted a tweet in which he accused defence lawyers of “an act of abuse” for seeking disclosure of a sexual assault complainant’s phone records, after being threatened with a defamation action.

The lawyers represent a well-known man who was charged with two counts of rape in Queensland in January over an alleged incident in Toowoomba in October 2021.

Mr Bradley, managing partner of Sydney firm Marque Lawyers, posted a tweet referring to reports about the prosecution of a “high-profile person” for sexual assault in Queensland, noting the defence had applied for a download of the complainant’s phone records. “There are no circumstances in which this material could be relevant to the issues in a rape trial. Seeking it is an act of abuse,” Mr Bradley wrote.

The barrister for the accused person sent a concerns notice to Mr Bradley demanding he remove the tweet and post an acknowledgment Marque Lawyers knew nothing of the circumstances of the application for disclosure, did not generally practice in criminal law and had never represented an accused in a rape case.

“Your tweet is not only defamatory of those representing this high-profile person, but has a real capacity to undermine the integrity of the criminal process,” the barrister wrote. “I note from your website, that amongst the various practice areas your firm asserts ‘expertise’ in, the practice of Criminal Law is NOT listed. This perhaps explains how such an ignorant tweet could be posted, but also makes your tweet all the more reckless and dangerous.”

Mr Bradley’s expertise is in trade practices and intellectual property. He describes himself on the firm’s website as “a shameless self-promoter” and often writes for Crikey as the outlet’s legal correspondent.

In recent days, legal figures have expressed alarm at the failure of prosecutors to comply with the “golden rule” that exculpatory evidence must be handed over to the defence. Sydney human rights barrister Felicity Graham, who specialises in police and government accountability, said: “There is a massive problem in NSW of police and prosecutors breaching their duty of disclosure by withholding material from the accused or dropping it on them at the last moment.

The deleted tweet.

“It is rare for police and prosecutors to comply with their duty of disclosure in contested matters in NSW. It’s terrible and so many just blithely go along with it.”

In the Queensland matter, the man is facing rape charges after his alleged victim googled a case in which he was involved. The alleged victim told police that, when she saw a photo of the man, she realised he was the same man she alleges had unprotected sex with her after they met in a Toowoomba nightclub in October 2021.

Prosecutors in the case will decide within a week how much data the man’s lawyers can access from the complainant’s phone records, which the defence believes may hold relevant evidence. The case was mentioned in Toowoomba Magistrates Court on Wednesday, where crown prosecutor Sarah Dreghorn told the court the crown had asked the defence why they thought the victim’s phone records were “disclosable”. The crown is deliberating over the defence’s justification, delivered last week, and “should have a response to the defence within a week,” she said.

The man’s identity ­remains protected under ­Queensland law which prohibits the identification of those charged with sexual assault or rape offences until they are committed to stand trial.

The man’s barrister said Mr Bradley’s tweet alleging the application was “abuse” had been viewed nearly 80,000 times, retweeted more than 650 times, liked by more than 2500 people and received more than 150 comments. “Given the significant profile of your Twitter account and the fact your firm (at least holds itself out as) responsible and competent legal practitioners both on your website and Twitter, you must be taken to be aware that the identity of the defendant who is the subject of your tweet is an open secret on Twitter,” the barrister wrote to Mr Bradley. “Similarly, you must be aware of the dangers of publicly commenting on any criminal case currently before the courts and that to do so may amount to a contempt.”

The solicitor acting for the accused person, Rowan King, also wrote to Mr Bradley, requesting a clarification tweet that would “remove the barb directed towards myself and the prejudice to the criminal process in this case”.

Mr Bradley promptly deleted the tweet but rejected the lawyers’ assertions. “The reference to ‘abuse’ in our tweet did not have the concept of abuse of process in mind,” he said.

“We are happy to confirm that we hold no opinion as to whether you or your instructing solicitors have acted improperly.”

Mr Bradley did not respond to a request by The Australian for comment. Mr King said: “To have a public suggestion that I was complicit in a ‘high profile person’ abusing a person who has alleged they were sexually ­assaulted is absolutely out­rageous. And for me, one of the biggest issues is that it came from a law firm.”