A former senior public servant from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has lost a last-ditch High Court appeal to keep his name secret after he was convicted of possessing child abuse material.
Keith Scott, 61, was charged in May 2020, after he uploaded two computer-generated images depicting child abuse to a Gmail account in his own name, intending to send them to a woman in the United Kingdom.
Police found the images when they seized Scott's laptop.
There were described as computer-generated, but with a natural appearance.
He told police at the time he had exchanged sexual fantasy emails with the woman in question for sexual gratification, but generally, they did not involve children.
A clinical psychologist who has treated Scott over many years told the court he was not a paedophile, but rather at the time of the offence was suffering from a major depressive disorder.
Scott eventually pleaded guilty and was last year given a two-year good behaviour order, but he has since been fighting an ongoing battle to maintain a suppression on his identity.
Revealing identity could have 'life threatening implications', court told
From the outset, Scott had asked to remain anonymous, saying it would be detrimental to a family member who would be at risk if the legal proceedings were exposed.
An expert witness told the court it would have "dire consequences" and "life-threatening implications".
After Scott was sentenced, then ACT Chief Justice Helen Murrell lifted the suppression.
Scott appealed Justice Murrell's decision and lost, but the restriction remained, pending a decision in the High Court.
His barrister Gabriel Wendler urged the High Court to hear Scott's case, warning an unintended injustice would flow from the situation if the suppression was lifted.
He said his case was about the limits of open justice and the unexpected consequences for a third party.
"The [application] is about the circumstances and the legal relationship between open justice and the administration of justice," Mr Wendler said.
"The question is to what extent does the notion of open justice yield."
But High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said the law was clear and the principles of open justice were only curtailed in circumstances where there was a prejudice to the administration of justice.
The court heard once Scott had been sentenced this was not an issue.
The application to hear Scott's case was dismissed on the grounds it did not have sufficient prospects of success, meaning the restriction on Scott's name is now lifted.
