A man facing serious charges including rape, bestiality, and child abuse has been unsuccessful in his attempt to keep the details of his case, and its alleged connection to the accused childcare worker Joshua Brown, under wraps.

Michael Simon Wilson, 36, appeared via video link from prison before the Melbourne Magistrates Court on October 14 as his legal representative sought a suppression order to prevent details of his case from being made public.

Despite the efforts, the court denied the application, allowing for the case details to be disclosed to the public.

Wilson was initially brought before the court in July, facing 45 charges, which include possession and distribution of child abuse material, rape, and bestiality.

During the investigation into Wilson’s alleged activities, authorities discovered information on his electronic devices that led them to Joshua Brown, a former childcare worker, according to previous court hearings.

Brown is currently charged with over 70 offenses, stemming from allegations that he abused eight children under his care between April 2022 and January 2023.

Wilson is not charged with any childcare-related offending.

His lawyer Heather Anderson said Wilson and Brown were not linked and were not co-accused as she applied to suppress his case from media reporting.

She argued there was a risk Wilson would not receive a fair jury trial if he continued to be tied to Brown.

“No doubt there will continue to be media interest regarding that person, the allegations made against that person are unprecedented and something that has and will continue to attract media attention – they’re charges that are unlikely to be forgotten,” Anderson said previously.

“The risk for Mr Wilson is the continuing media interest in relation to Mr Brown and information being reported about that which then links back to Mr Wilson.”

Magistrate Donna Bakos said she might be open to making an order that suppressed any information linking Wilson to Brown, rather than a full gag order, which the lawyer accepted as a better course.

Anderson said linking her client to Brown in any reporting on the case could prejudice his right to a fair trial as those charges were “extraordinary” and would not “disappear from the minds of people”.

Prosecutor Pierce Russell opposed a suppression application, adding there was a link between the two men.

He labelled Brown’s case “unprecedented and notorious”.

“The link between them is an evidentiary link and forms the basis of certain charges,” he told the earlier October hearing.

“There are discussions between the pair that occur … involving discussions about child abuse material.

“And police investigators … they located those communications and that’s effectively what kickstarted their inquiry into Mr Brown.”

The prosecutor did not go into further detail about the evidence in open court.

Russell said a suppression order was not necessary at such an early stage of the case.

“There’s no evidence before the court … that Mr Wilson’s name and his connection to Mr Brown is likely to remain in the consciousness of prospective jurors some 18 months into the future,” he said.

“We can’t proceed on the basis that juries are fragile and we can’t be overly sensitive about these things.”

Bakos adjourned the application to today, when she said she was not persuaded a suppression order was needed and dismissed the application.

She noted Brown’s alleged offending was “extraordinary” and had led to “considerable panic, concern and anguish in the community”.

But the prospect that Wilson might have links to Brown, “who attracts notoriety”, did not mean he was entitled to a suppression order, the magistrate said.

Wilson will return to the court on November 14 for a committal mention, while Brown returns to court in February.