Adelaide Now: Secrecy plea in McGee hearing

Hit-run lawyer Eugene McGee’s attempts to stop his conspiracy trial should be heard under a “blanket” of total secrecy, prosecutors said yesterday. McGee, 52, and his brother Craig, 57, have pleaded not guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice. The charges relate to the duo’s conduct in the hours after the 2004 hit-run death of cyclist Ian Humphrey. A top Victorian lawyer, brought in by the Director of Public Prosecutions, asked in the District Court yesterday that the media be banned from reporting the stay of proceedings application. Jeremy Rapke, QC, also asked a survey commissioned by McGee, detailing “hundreds” of opinions about his hit-run trial, be ignored.

Though he dismissed claims “intense” publicity meant McGee could not get a fair trial, he warned reporting those claims could prejudice potential jurors. Judge Malcolm Robertson, however, refused the suppression order bid. He agreed with submissions, made by The Advertiser and the ABC, the public had a right to know about the case. “This application is, to use a colloquial phrase, for a blanket suppression,” he said. “I’m not satisfied the Crown has made out an argument this case has special circumstances.”

Eugene McGee arrived at court yesterday pushing a trolley of documents. He was acquitted of causing Mr Humphrey’s death by dangerous driving but was fined for driving without due care. In a subsequent royal commission, he testified his brother Craig alerted him when it was safe to go to their mother’s Kapunda house after police had been there looking for him. He also said Craig drove the pair to Adelaide that night, stopping at a police roadblock without alerting officers to his brother’s presence in the car. If convicted, the brothers face a maximum, four-year jail term.

Sydney-based lawyer Tim Game, SC, for McGee, yesterday said it would be impossible to convene a South Australian jury that would hear the case impartially. Public perception of his client was so adverse, he said, a trial would be an abuse of process.