Exclusive: Man in witness protection until drug boss Piet Ta, who fled bail before his sentencing of up to 14 years in jail, is found

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

A man who complained of being publicly identified on a Queensland courts website as an informant in a major drug case entered witness protection after investigators learned of an alleged plan to have him murdered.

The Brisbane man gave evidence against drug boss Piet “Bruce” Ta, who fled on bail last week before his sentencing of up to 14 years jail over a multimillion-dollar syndicate trafficking cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and cannabis across three states.

The Crime and Corruption Commission has since warned the man of fresh intelligence that Ta wants him killed, a threat that Queensland police regard as credible and serious.

The CCC urged him to enter its witness protection program – which would be his second stint since turning informant – until Ta was located.

Weeks earlier, lawyers for the man complained to the supreme court registry about the online publication of cases identifying him by name as an informant and participant in witness protection.

The court responded the same day by taking the cases offline, pending further investigation of the matter.

It is not known if there is evidence of any link to the court’s publications – which sat online for more than a year – and the alleged threat on the informant’s life.

A spokesman for the CCC said it did not comment on matters involving potential witness protection.

Guardian Australia understands Ta, who had pleaded guilty to some charges for which the prosecution called for 12 to 14 years jail, was aware the informant was due to testify against him on other charges.

It is understood the judgments identifying the informant were published after routine vetting procedures, including oversight by a senior appeal court bench including the judge who would become the chief justice, Catherine Holmes.

The judgments – including an unsuccessful appeal by the attorney general against a “manifestly inadequate” sentence – did not include confidential reasons given by the bench, which were sealed along with a transcript of closed court proceedings.

However, the informant’s lawyers wrote to the court registrar on 1 July to complain that the “published judgments make various references to our client by name, identifying him inferentially and otherwise as an informer in respect of the commission of a [drug offence] and a participant in a witness protection program”.

This was “unhelpful” and may be a breach of sections of the Drugs Misuse Act and the Witness Protection Act, they said.

The lawyers said that “in all the circumstances it is not apparent to us why our client’s name was not anonymised in those proceedings”.

“Our client is gravely concerned that the information contained in those judgments is now broadly available, on the internet and elsewhere, to the general public,” they said.

“A Google search of his name brings up on the first page a reference to the judgments in the instant proceedings.”

The man, whom Guardian Australia has chosen not to name, served two years in jail for his role working for Ta.

The published judgment, seen by Guardian Australia, state this involved collecting about $1.5m in cash and delivering up to $4.8m worth of drugs, including up to 15.2kg of methamphetamine, over 62kg of cannabis and two ounces of cut cocaine.

He earned around $30,000 for the work. The court found he was vulnerable to manipulation by Ta, who led a “lavish lifestyle” in which the man in witness protection also participated.

Police surveillance showed the informant and Ta discussed fleeing the country after learning a shed where Ta’s drugs and gun were stored had been searched.

However, the man then turned informant and entered witness protection and protective custody after the CCC – then known as the Crime and Misconduct Commission – deemed him “a moderately high risk to his own safety because of his cooperation”.

Holmes ruled there was “a recognised public interest in encouraging cooperation of the kind” shown by the informant.

The informant’s legal team in his original trial did not apply for a suppression order on his name.

The president of the Queensland law society, Bill Potts, said defendants who wished to remain anonymous as informants generally had to apply for such orders, showing they or their families were at risk of harm.