Extraordinary secrecy surrounds court details of senior NSW police officer charged with drink-driving

A high-ranking New South Wales police officer charged with drink-driving offences is scheduled to face a two-day hearing later this year, a Sydney court has been told, amid extraordinary secrecy measures around the matter.

The officer, who can only be referred to as AB under a 40-year court order, allegedly crashed a police car in Sydney's NorthConnex tunnel after getting drunk at a work function in May 2023.

He was later charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and high-range drink-driving.

The officer pleaded not guilty to the charges in December.

Separately, in July this year, the New South Wales police watchdog made two findings of "serious misconduct" against the detective.

's breaking news email

On Thursday, the drink-driving matter was briefly mentioned in the Downing Centre local court. The court was told a hearing was scheduled for the end of November but the matter would return on 7 November for the "outcome of negotiations".

Guardian Australia was in court on Thursday but the court initially refused to reveal in which court room the matter would be heard. This meant the matter would effectively be heard in secret.

Normally, cases are listed in an online public registry which provides information regarding when and where a matter is to be heard. AB's case was not listed.

On Wednesday, Guardian Australia emailed the court requesting the court room for Thursday's mention. However, the court said it was unable to disclose any information that identified the defendant or details of the matter and that the court room would not be disclosed.

Other media outlets were also told the court room would not be revealed. Guardian Australia and some other media outlets had been unable to attend AB's previous hearing in September when denied the same information.

On Wednesday afternoon, media contacted the office of the state attorney general, Michael Daley, to express concern that access had effectively been denied by the court. Shortly afterwards, the registrar provided the room location.

The police watchdog in July found AB " was treated more leniently in the way in which he was managed by his commander and in the police review of his driving". This "favourable treatment" led other police officers to lose confidence in the integrity of the force, the report stated.

The report, which does not form part of the drink-driving proceedings, found the loyalty AB's commander felt towards the detective meant he failed to make impartial decisions on subsequent risk-management actions.

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission also made a serious misconduct finding against the officer "for deliberately leaving the scene of a crash he caused ... to avoid being breath-tested".

A police summary noted in the report said AB had consumed 13 schooners of XXXX Gold and eight mixed-spirit drinks before the crash.

Asked on what basis the court had initially made the decision to not inform media outlets of the room the matter was in, a local court spokesperson said: "The matter is subject to a suppression order, the details of which were reviewed by the registrar following an inquiry from media."

"Following this review of the court file and the suppression order in effect, the registrar determined that the court room listing details were able to be made available to media and this was actioned promptly."

A suppression order on the case restricts the disclosure of any information that could identify the accused.

It states the commissioner of police is to be "notified of any application for access to the court file and is to have the opportunity to be heard prior to any decision on access".

Sam Lee, a solicitor at Redfern Legal Centre and expert in police accountability, said while the court took into account a number of factors whether to make a suppression order it was "critical that NSW police are not considered above the law".

"When it has been alleged an officer has committed an offence, the principle of open justice requires that an officer be subject to the same level of transparency as the general public," she said on Thursday. "Without openness, integrity wilts away."

The NSW attorney general, Michael Daley, declined to comment. A spokesperson told Guardian Australia it was an operational matter for the court.