Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
The alleged “sex pest” barrister who was accused of making uninvited advances towards a junior solicitor in his chambers will shoulder the costs of a failed application to keep his identity a secret.
Enzo Belperio, the South Australian barrister accused of sexual misconduct, was ordered to pay the costs of the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner’s (LPCC) defence to his suppression application, which was found to be “inutile” and “without merit”.
While specific details are still not yet known, Belperio was accused of making “uninvited physical and sexual contact with, or advances to, a female junior solicitor colleague, junior in age and position” to him.
The LPCC laid charges of sexual misconduct against Belperio in 2022, but this was thrown out by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on the grounds it did not have the jurisdiction. On appeal, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court last August.
The charges have been remitted back to the tribunal for review.
Belperio’s name was anonymised in that decision, but several months later, the Supreme Court found there was “substantial interest” to legal practitioners and the public to have his identity revealed.
In the costs judgment handed down on 20 March, the Honourable Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, along with Justices Chris Bleby and Laura Stein, said Belperio’s grounds “did not fall within the concept of the interests of justice” and instead were of “personal self-interest”.
They also found a forensic psychologist’s opinion of Belperio’s health had “lacked sound evidential foundation on the material he had”.
The Advertiser, a South Australian newspaper under the News Corporation banner, intervened in support of the open justice principle. While “adequately put”, the paper was not awarded costs.
Before his identity was published, The Advertiser became aware of the sexual misconduct charges and labelled Belperio a “sex pest”.
“The Advertiser had earlier published an article which was critical of Belperio and the suppression of his name,” the court ruled.
“This is not a case in which Belperio should pay two sets of costs. Nor should the commissioner be required to share a single costs order made against Belperio with The Advertiser, which elected to intervene.”
Belperio’s disciplinary matter is ongoing.
The case is Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Belperio (No 3) [2025] SASCA 28 (20 March 2025).
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
