For 289 days, the media closely followed the court case of a ‘high profile’ man who was charged with two counts of rape following an incident in Toowoomba in October 2021. He didn’t appear on 11 January when the case was first mentioned in the Toowoomba Magistrate’s Court. No one could report his name, but everyone who read about it knew it involved someone famous. Now, we finally know who he is. On 26 October, former Liberal Party staff member Bruce Lehrmann was identified by the media as the man at the centre of these allegations. But why hadn’t anyone been allowed to name him up until this point?

It comes down to a recent change in the Queensland law, which has altered the way court reporting operates in the Sunshine State. So what is the change that’s being made, and why has it taken so long to implement it? Let’s have a look into the law change in more depth.

What was the old law?

According to the previous version of Queensland’s Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 that was in use until 2 October 2023, any reporting of the identity of a defendant being accused of a prescribed sexual offence – an umbrella term for rape, attempt to commit rape and assault with intent to commit rape – was prohibited under Section 7. Defendant information (including name, address, school or place of employment) that could make them identifiable could not be revealed by reports before the case went to trial or the defendant pleaded guilty.

This was contradictory to the reporting of other offences in the state. People accused of other crimes could be named by the media but not those who allegedly committed sexual offences. Accused murderers were named before they made it to court to fight their case, but alleged sex offenders and rapists were suppressed from public knowledge.

Violators of the law faced a fine of up to $15,480 and two years imprisonment, while media corporations could have been ordered to pay over $150,000 if this information was published.

What is the new law?

Simply put, the new laws remove the legal anonymity of those accused of sexual assault or other offences. However, the alterations made to the legislation still allows name suppression under certain circumstances.

According to the updated legislation, Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act now applies to the process of defendants applying for non-publication orders. These orders have the ability to prohibit publication even under the new laws, but are only in the case of ensuring justice, preventing distress to the accuser or to protect the safety of either party in a case.

Changes to the law have eventuated over the last six months. In May, the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 was first introduced in Queensland State Parliament and then on 13 September, the bill was passed. On 3 October the laws came into effect across the entire state of Queensland.

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence the Honourable Yvette D’Ath, who announced the passing of the legislation, explained some of the reasons why it was introduced.

“Rape and sexual assault are some of the most underreported criminal offences in Australia and we want to support victims to come forward and hold perpetrators to account,” she said.

“Under the new laws, those accused of prescribed sexual offences, including rape, will be treated the same as any other individual charged with an offence in Queensland.”

Media may still be prevented from reporting identifying traits of an accused person if they are awarded a non-publication order. Under Section 7B of the Act, courts may make one of these orders if they feel that reports would prevent the proper administration of justice, cause additional distress to the victim or a witness related to the charge or to protect the safety of any people involved in the case.

Any non-publication orders are revoked once the defendant is committed for trial, a sentence is handed down, or the charge is withdrawn.

The law changes do not apply to victim survivors, as they still can’t be named.

Why have things changed?

In announcing the law changes coming into effect, Minister D’Ath made specific reference to the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce as the body that recommended the change. This adaptation was just one of 188 recommendations made in the second Hear her voice report, of which the Queensland Government announced their support of 103 recommendations in full and 71 in principle.

The recommendation which relates to the identification of accused sexual offenders/rapists in media reports is found in Volume One of the two-volume report, released on 1 July 2022. The report as a whole looks at the experiences of women and girls in the criminal justice system as both survivors and perpetrators of sexual violence. Recommendations for the Queensland Government to consider are then based from these experiences and other observations made by the Taskforce.

Specifically for court reporting, the report recommended that amendments should be made to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act that would “remove the restriction on publication of the identity of an adult accused of a sexual offence before a committal hearing where it would not identify or tend to lead to the identification of a victim-survivor”.

The “high profile” Toowoomba man:

The biggest case in Queensland to be heard under the new legislation is the accusations made against a ‘high profile’ man for allegedly raping a woman in Toowoomba in October 2021. After a Supreme Court judge upheld a decision to refuse the application for a non-publication order on 26 October, the media was allowed to report that the ‘high profile’ man was Bruce Lehrmann.

The impending law changes mean that without a non-publication order, his name could be reported before the case reached the trial stage. So for over nine months, Lehrmann and his lawyers worked to keep his identity secret. Just five days before the new laws were set to come into effect, he was able to successfully suppress his identity until a formal hearing was held, which was pushed back from 5 October to 13 October. When the case for a non-publication order was finally heard, it was denied, meaning that Lehrmann’s name should have become public, if not for another postponement granted for his lawyers to seek a judicial review.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Honourable Justice Peter Applegarth, in favour of the non-publication order, denied that Lehrmann’s team had “established a ground for judicial review”, and dismissed the case.

Lehrmann’s team argued that the publication of his identity would prevent the process of proper justice, and, more importantly, put the safety of Lehrmann at risk. His barrister Andrew Hoare argued that there was a “real existing risk of harm which will be amplified by the publication of the applicant’s [identity]”. However, due in part to Lehrmann’s appearances on a number of television broadcasts in the middle of this year – including a Channel 7 program where he said “let’s light some fires” – Justice Applegarth agreed with the Toowoomba Magistrate that there were no reasonable grounds for a non-publication order. 

What are the laws in other states?

All states of Australia as well as the ACT have already implemented similar laws that allow for sex offenders and rapists to be reported in the media in the same way other alleged criminals are. Some states have had these regulations in place for some time now, but others have only recently changed.

In May 2020, South Australia made a change to their Evidence Act which now allows the media to publish identifying information about a defendant after the accused person’s first court appearance. In making these changes, former South Australian Attorney-General Vickie Chapman acknowledged that the state needed to adapt to the times.

“As I’ve stated many times before, automatic suppression of sex offenders was an archaic piece of law in SA,” she said.

The Northern Territory remains the only Australian state or territory that maintains laws under the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act 1983 giving accused offenders specific privilege to remain anonymous until committed for trial. Offenders of this law face a fine of up to $7,040 and a six month jail sentence. The NT government has made no indications that there will be a change to its Act.

Photo: Judge Signing on the Papers by Ekaterina Bolovtsova available HERE and used under a Creative Commons license. This image has not been modified.