Amateur sleuth livestreams Melissa Caddick hearing

An amateur online sleuth illegally recorded a sensitive Federal Court proceeding about missing Sydney businesswoman Melissa Caddick and shared the video on Facebook.

Missing businesswoman Melissa Caddick.

An amateur online sleuth illegally recorded a sensitive Federal Court proceeding about missing Sydney accountant Melissa Caddick and shared the video with thousands of Facebook users. An administrator who runs the Facebook group Where is Melissa Caddick and the missing millions? recorded a case management hearing on Monday and shared the proceedings, which involved discussion of suppression orders, with the page’s 3100-odd members.

Ms Caddick, who vanished hours after the corporate watchdog raided her $6m Dover Heights mansion in Sydney’s east on November 11, is accused of swindling clients, including friends and family, out of a combined $13.1m through her unlicensed financial services firm Maliver.

On Monday, the Federal Court heard liquidators had found $5600 in Ms Caddick’s bank accounts, prompting ASIC’s lawyers to note a “significant shortfall” between the millions investigators allege the 49-year-old owed investors and the value of her assets.

But unbeknown to Justice Brigitte Markovic, a host of armchair detectives were able to watch the proceedings online after UK-based Matthew Halsall began livestreaming the courtroom on Facebook.

Under section 39 of the Court Security Act 2013 (Cth), a person can be fined $4200 if they make an “unauthorised recording” of a court proceeding. According to the Federal Court, the recording of a hearing is “strictly prohibited” without express approval.

Law Council of Australia president Jacoba Brasch QC said Facebook could also be penalised under the Court Security Act due to “the platform’s role in the transmission of videos”.

The virtual hearing, which was held over Microsoft Teams, allowed participants to join remotely. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts and tribunals across Australia embraced virtual proceedings in March last year.

Sydney University criminal law lecturer Carolyn McKay said the apparent security breach posed “serious questions” about enforceability and the safety of using virtual hearings.

“We’ve certainly seen the difficulty in getting social media companies to take down content, you just need to go to Brenton Tarrant and what happened at Christchurch,” Dr McKay said. “The ease in which people can share content raises questions for (virtual) family law cases and when vulnerable witnesses and children are involved.”

Dr McKay said the incident highlighted the difficulty court officials face in trying to balance security with the principles of open justice.

The video was available for almost five hours before it was removed on Monday afternoon. The court was not aware proceedings had been live­streamed until contacted by The Australian.

NSW Police, who are still searching for Ms Caddick, say she is presumed to be alive and that “someone” may have helped her flee the country.

Barrister Stephanie Fendekian, for ASIC, told the court on Monday that the watchdog was considering seeking “further relief” for the mother-of-one’s alleged victims.

“We’ve learnt there is a limited asset pool vis-a-vie the bulk of the assets are in her name rather than the company name, and there’s also the added fact that most of the investors did not invest with (directly with Ms Caddick),” she said.

Ms Fendekian said those assets – which were mostly in Ms Caddick’s name – included real estate, shares and “luxury goods” such as jewellery.

The liquidators’ reports had identified several “possible contraventions” of corporation and criminal law by Ms Caddick, Ms Fendekian said.

She said only $5600 remained in Ms Caddick’s accounts and that one further $1700 payment would be made for her son and DJ husband Anthony Koletti’s court-ordered living expenses.

The matter returns to court on April 7.