Lawyer-X: Police bid to suppress name of officer dismissed

A police bid to suppress the identity of a senior officer embroiled in the Lawyer X fiasco has been dismissed.

Barrister Nicola Gobbo. Picture: ABC.

A Victoria Police bid to suppress the identity of a senior officer embroiled in the Lawyer X fiasco from the royal commission’s final report has been dismissed.

The application, which ­accused Lawyer X royal commission head Margaret McMurdo QC of being “legally irrational”, argued the officer would face reputational damage and risks to his life if he was publicly connected to the commission’s findings on Victoria Police’s relationship with Nicola Gobbo.

But Victoria’s Court of ­Appeal judges David Beach, Stephen McLeish and Mark Weinberg dismissed the Victoria Police application on Wednesday, saying the community ­deserved transparency.

“The community as a whole would be disadvantaged through a lack of transparency in relation to what might prove to be one of the greatest scandals of our time in relation to the workings of the criminal justice system,” the judgment said.

Ms Gobbo was a defence barrister to Melbourne underworld heavies such as Tony Mokbel at the height of the gangland wars in the mid-2000s. She simultaneously was snitching on her clients to police.

The royal commission into the police management of ­informants has been probing the extent of Victoria Police’s ­involvement with Ms Gobbo and whether the relationship amounted to corruption.

Police had sought to suppress the identity of the police officer, replacing his name in the final report with a pseudonym, as well as redacting footnotes.

Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Neal Paterson submitted an application on behalf of the high-ranking police officer, saying criminals could embrace an “all-gloves-off attitude” if they believed they had been unfairly targeted or treated due to corruption. “This is ­because, at this stage, a police member is no different to another criminal associate that may be harmed or killed for ­revenge,” he said.

But Ms McMurdo refused the non-publication order, noting the subjects of the former gangland detective’s investigations would “largely be aware of his identity and his involvement”.

She also said reputational concerns were not a reason to grant a suppression order. “Were I to do so, every current or former police officer against whom counsel assisting urged me to make adverse findings would be encouraged to make similar ­applications,” she said.

The Appeal Court decision found there was “nothing illogical or irrational” about Ms McMurdo fearing other officers would seek to have their names suppressed.