THE state’s top health official has orchestrated a series of closed court hearings that have prevented the public learning ­details of a case involving the possible spreading of a potentially deadly virus in Hobart.

A man had been charged with offences under the HIV/AIDS Preventative Measures Act and the Public Health Act but, when the case came to court, no details of it could be published for legal reasons.

The case has involved a series of court hearings in Hobart over ­recent months. At the first hearing the State’s Director of Public Health, Roscoe Taylor, instructed a police prosecutor to obtain two suppression orders so details of the case could not be made public.

The Sunday Tasmanian was prevented from appearing in the court to oppose the making of the orders because the case was not listed on public court lists. The def­endant was not called outside the courtroom, and the suppression application was heard in a closed court.

The Sunday Tasmanian has fought to have the orders overturned, citing public interest and the need for an open justice system.

The Sunday Tasmanian was seeking to identify the charges the alleged offender faced, his plea and any penalty imposed, if he was found guilty – as is routine with criminal cases. It was not intending to identify any victims.

But intervention by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in a hearing last week succeeded in keeping the details secret.

That was so because the legislation prevents a magistrate from changing any earlier order that has been made preventing publication of such a case.

Under the HIV/AIDS Preventive Measures Act, a person who knowingly or recklessly transmits a disease or fails to disclose their HIV status to a person at risk of becoming infected faces a two-year jail term and a $6500 fine. Such cases are routinely publicised in other states and heard in open court.

But Tasmania’s Public Health Act gives the Director of Public Health broad powers to require courts to keep secret charges relating to notifiable diseases, from anthrax to HIV to smallpox and hepatitis and, if he does demand that, the legislation places the onus on anyone opposing the making of such an order to demonstrate why the order should not be made.

Legal experts said this was a difficult proposition when the details of the case, such as the present, are kept secret in the first place.

Law Society of Tasmania president Anthony Mihal said closed court hearings were highly unusual in Tasmania, outside of Children’s Court and child welfare cases.

“The general principal is that proceedings are heard in public and it’s certainly an important principle that justice is seen to be done,” he said.

“In order to depart from that principle there needs to be good reasons for doing so.”

There were important restrictions in place against the identification of victims of sexual offences, but the suppression of an entire case was rare, he said.

“It would be a rare event in courts that are normally open for suppression orders to be made.

“Children’s Courts and child protection matters are normally closed. Apart from those courts, it would be a rare occurrence in Tasmania for a successful application to be made to close a court. A formal register of suppression orders – as existed in other states – would make it easier to know whether the laws were being overused.

Fresh from successfully opposing a bid to suppress the latest instalment in the Channel Nine series Underbelly, leading media lawyer Justin Quill said laws interstate made obtaining suppression orders in such cases harder.

“There’s been two cases in the last three years – one we fought and one we didn’t have to fight where someone had been charged with spreading HIV and they were able to be identified.

“We have in Victoria now, as of January 1 this year, a new piece of legislation – the Open Courts Act.

“The theory behind it is it sets the bar higher for the making of suppression orders.

“We were known in Melbourne as Supression City during the gangland wars 10 years ago. There were a lot of good reasons for more suppression orders back then but barristers and solicitors got in the habit of asking their clients if they’d want one, and of course nobody wants their name in the paper.

“There was a culture that developed that saw the balance not tipping the correct way.

“It’s a slippery slope. At one point you’re talking about a suppression order in an arguably appropriate case, and the next minute you’re talking about secret justice.”

The Mercury understands that Dr Taylor is conducting a hunt within the Health Dep­artment in a bid to identify how the Sunday Tasmanian found out about the case.

A Health Department spokesman declined to answer questions directed to Dr Taylor. “The proceedings are a matter for the courts and it would be inappropriate to comment further,” he said.

Health Minister Michelle O’Byrne said she retained confidence in Dr Taylor.

david.killick@news.com.au