Contempt charge looms for man who allegedly breached suppression order

Contempt charge considered for Cairns man who allegedly breached suppression order Tue 16 Jun 2026 at 3:26pm In short: A man who allegedly posted suppressed details of an extortion case may face serious contempt charges. A magistrate has strongly advised the 35-year-old seek legal representation. What's next? Police must provide the accused with a brief of evidence by next month ahead of his next hearing. Queensland Police have told a regional court they are considering a contempt of court charge against a Cairns man who allegedly published suppressed details about a high-profile Queensland man at the centre of an extortion case. The 35-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is accused of breaching a non-publication order by continuing to publish suppressed court proceedings. He was arrested on Friday and pleaded not guilty on Saturday morning. Today, the court heard he intended to challenge the charge that he disobeyed the order, arguing the order was not in place when he first posted the material on social media. But police prosecutor Senior Sergeant Maynard Marcum told the court he was considering replacing the breach charge with the more serious contempt of court charge because the man continued to publish material. "I suspect the most appropriate action will be to file an application for contempt of court,"he said. Magistrate James Morton told the self-represented man the police prosecutor had "put him on notice" and encouraged him to get legal representation. "The contempt charge might not be going ahead," Magistrate Morton said. "But a contempt of court charge is not something to turn your nose up at; it doesn't go away and it can have serious outcomes." Senior Sergeant Marcum told the court he believed the "threatening detriment" element of the extortion charge should never have been published. "One of the conditions of that order was that the detriment threatened, with respect to the married man, would not be published," he said Senior Sergeant Marcum said it was not about protecting the married man. "It's a typical and often-used protection — with respect to particularly extortion and blackmail cases — that the threatened detriment not be published because, otherwise, all that's achieved is that the accused's threats are achieved," he told the court. The man asked the court for a copy of the non-publication suppression order. "The order hasn't been published. Nobody's been able to get a copy of it,"he said. "I certainly requested it from prosecution and the courts to make genuine steps to comply with an order that is said to exist. "All we have to go off is [Senior Sergeant Marcum's] words." But the prosecutor told the court the man was in the court when the original suppression order was made. Magistrate Morton denied Senior Sergeant Marcum's application for a suppression order on today's hearings, as well as the man's application for a written suppression order, saying it was not for his court to decide. "That topic that has been raised is in another jurisdiction and that is not my job today to interpret that," Magistrate Morton told the court. Police prosecutors have been told to have a brief of evidence prepared for the man by July 21, ahead of the next appearance on August 4. [Image text:] CAIRNS COURTHOUSE