Channel 7Channel 7

Channel 7 personality charged with child sexual abuse and torture gets suppression orders to override new QLD laws

A Channel 7 personality who has been charged with child rape and torture has been granted suppression orders to override the new Queensland laws, which start on the 3rd of October, that allows alleged sex offenders to be named before they are committed for trial.

I know about the suppression orders because the woman’s lawyers sent me a letter and the court orders which named the women which from what I can tell puts her lawyers in breach of current Queensland laws which I discuss in the second video below.

The 52-year-old woman is accused of eight counts of rape, one sexual assault, 17 counts of indecent treatment of children under 16, two charges of torture, four allegations of assault occasioning bodily harm – two of them whilst armed/in company and two common assault offences. And a 49-year-old man is charged with seven counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. (Click here to read more)

The high profile Toowoomba man charged with rape, whose matter is not related to the Channel 7 personality or her male co-accused, has also managed to get last minute suppression orders which I will discuss further towards the end of this article.

Currently in Queensland sex offenders can only be named once they are committed for trial but that will change on the 3rd of October to bring Queensland in line with other states where anyone charged with a crime can be named straight away.

Channel 7 personality charged with child rape and torture

There are some strange happenings with the suppression orders taken out by the Channel 7 personality. I received the below 2 page letter via email at 4.34pm of Thursday:

Attached to the email with the letter were also the below court orders:

Amazingly I was the one who redacted (blacked out) the alleged paedophiles name above. Her lawyers sent me her name which is in breach of current Queensland laws. Her lawyers could have sent me the letter and court orders and redacted her name because they identified my video so I would have known just from that it was the Channel 7 personality.

I even said in the video that I didn’t know who it was at Seven and it was only when I received the lawyers letter did it confirm for me who it was.

Below is my video that her lawyers identified in their letter:

(Click here to watch the above video on YouTube)

The women has been charged along with a man and Nine’s A Current Affair reported 2 weeks ago “The man’s legal team yesterday tried to have his name suppressed, but A Current Affair fought that and won.” (Click here to read more)

Only one of them has to get a suppression order and that means the media can’t name the other one as well because it would identify the one with the suppression order. So in effect the woman’s interim suppression orders and application for permanent suppression orders is the second attempt for the suppression orders for both of them.

Based on the facts above.

  1. The Channel 7 personality was granted a suppression order Wednesday the 27th of September and likely at an urgent ex parte hearing. If it was an ex parte hearing it means that the police prosecutor / Director of Public Prosecutions lawyers weren’t in court. There were no media reports of the suppression orders on Wednesday.
  2. On Thursday the 28th of September at 4.34pm the Channel 7 personality’s lawyers emailed me the above letter and court orders. I made the above video private just to cover myself before evaluating the situation. I assume other media would have received a letter and court orders about the same time or earlier. There were no media reports of the suppression orders on Thursday.
  3. On Friday the 29th of September at 11:14am I published a message on Twitter which said: “An alleged sex offender in Queensland has been granted interim suppression orders to override the new QLD laws that take effect on 3rd of October allowing alleged sex offenders to be named. Their lawyers sent me the court orders. It’s not the Toowoomba case”. (Click here to see the message on Twitter)
  4. At 12.52pm I published the below video on YouTube which is titled “”Alleged sex offender in Queensland granted interim suppression orders to override the new QLD laws” and I read out the court orders in the video:

(Click here to watch the above video on YouTube)

It wasn’t until the nightly news on Friday the 29th of September that Nine News and Channel 10 mentioned the Channel 7 personality being granted the suppression order which is more than 2 days after it was issued.

It raises the question of why Nine News and Channel 10 sat on the story for a day or 2 or did the Channel 7 personality’s lawyers not notify them until Friday? And at this point I can’t find any other media who have run the Channel 7 personality’s suppression order story but most have run the high-profile Toowoomba man’s alleged rape suppression order story.

All the other media still have their old stories published on the internet from the 2nd of September about the channel 7 personality as per below:

Women charged with rape

(Click here to see on the above article News website)

So why have some of the old media now gone silent on the Channel 7 personality and the suppression orders and others haven’t? Has someone at Channel 7 been working the phones?

High-profile Toowoomba man charged with rape gets interim suppression orders

About 1pm on Friday the 29th of September media reports started being posted that the high-profile Toowoomba man charged with rape had been granted, by the Supreme Court in Brisbane, a suppression order until he files an application for suppression orders in the Toowoomba Magistrates Court and until the matter is finalised. With a hearing and possible appeal it could be months, it not a year or more, before he can be named.

This is a blatant abuse of the process by the Toowoomba man as he had already flagged more than a month ago in Toowoomba that he was going to apply for a suppression order, but he never did.

New laws always have to be tested but the Toowoomba man and the Channel 7 personality are abusing the system and should have been called out and denied the suppression orders by the judge and magistrate.

I’ll keep following up.

Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.

If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.

Thank you for your support.

For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.

Follow Kangaroo Court of Australia via email. Enter your email address below and click on the follow button.

9 replies »

    • Information publicly available on the internet indicates that the high profile male was 27 years of age when charged with rape in January of this year. The man will appear in Toowoomba Court. By putting together his age, his “high profile” label and the city of Toowoomba, it is not difficult to make a reasonable guess as to who the high profile male might be. There are not too many 27 or 28 year old males who have managed to become “high profile” recently.

      • Yeah, Bones, we can all put 2 +2 together and get 4, but even hinting at his identity could enable him to claim he can’t get a Fair Trial, and his mates in very high places then get to rule no Trial ever takes place.
        The Committal Hearing was originally set down for March, here we are in October and he still hasn’t faced Court.

  1. Waiting to see who they are, no idea so far, seems odd that if a footballer who is also a high profile citizen, is charged with an offence of rape etc, that person’s photo appears on the front page of newspapers and on the 6.00 o’clock news, yet these protected grubs are issued with suppression orders, we should be naming the magistrates and judges who have double standards, place photos of the judiciary on the front pages and TV news bulletins…

  2. I’m sorry but IMHO, this bovine excreta totally does my head in. The judiciary and main stream media of this country have a great deal to answer for, and not just on this matter alone. I am sure that if more people read the truth reporting as offered by KCA, there would be a greater appreciation of the manipulation that we as Australian citizens endure on a daily basis.
    Please remain ever vigilant..

  3. Hi…Channel 7 are running a Juvenile Crime Crisis campaign in QLD and wants alleged offenders named. Why do they not apply the same standards to an alleged torturer of children.

Leave a Reply