Revealing his identity would impose “embarrassment and emotional pain” on the complainant [the mistress who was allegedly extorted], who would bear the burden of knowing it was her who was the source of the information and that she could have avoided imposing the pain and embarrassment on MM by complying with the extortion demand, [Judge] Henry said.
Given the identity of MM is an open secret (as happens with most publicised injunctions) but nobody seems to know or particularly even care who the complainant is, that seems to prove the judge wrong.
Wow, you’re not wrong. I’d never heard of him until your comment prompted a quick search. I guess this is more a Queensland thing, because even now knowing who he is, I don’t care much.
If his identity is officially suppressed, this can’t be brought up in parliament. That’s about the only reason I can see he’d maintain his “anonymity”.
Weird the identity of low profile men are never protected…
Some kids killed a guy here and they anonymity. They are scum, not of amy profile.
