Senior Sergeant Shayne Maxwell published a column in the June edition of the QPU Journal, explaining that he had endeavoured in the previous month's edition to “out” and “comment” on “several high ranking government employees and elected politicians who have criminal records”.

The article was pulled after a legal check.

Senior Sergeant Maxwell did not access the information from a police database, which logs “every keystroke” officers enter.  Instead, it is understood to have been handed to him from a third party.

Senior Sergeant Maxwell told Fairfax Media he wanted to release the information publicly, due to the esteemed positions of the people on the list.

Vice-president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties Terry O’Gorman said had information been released, it would have been an abuse of power.

Mr O’Gorman said the council had warned passing of the government’s criminal motorcycle gang legislation, part of which enabled the Police Commissioner to publish the criminal history of gang suspects, would “open the floodgates”.

“An individual officer has no right and should have no right to publish the criminal history of anyone – be it Mr Anonymous from the suburbs or a high ranking politician,” he said.

“And there is a good reason for that.  Under the privacy provisions, the law says that unless there is some good public reason, a person’s criminal history should not be published.  And that is because there has been a long practice of putting it behind you, as set down in the Rehabilitated Offenders Act.”

Under the Rehabilitated Offenders Act 1986, it is illegal to publish someone’s criminal history once a period of time, usually a decade, has passed.

Exceptions apply for those applying for jobs in the police service, corrections, teaching or legal professions.

The little known law came to prominence when a former member of the Gympie branch of the LNP published details of David Gibson’s past, which were protected under the act, earlier this year.

The fall out prompted Mr Gibson to announce he would not contest the next election.

The man who released Mr Gibson’s information is under police investigation.

Senior Sergeant Maxwell learnt of the law when the union’s lawyers put a stop to the publication of his May column.

Instead where Senior Sergeant Maxwell’s usual ‘round up’, a page dedicated to the regions or wider policing issues, appeared, was a page declaring: “Unfortunately, almost every word of Shayne’s Roundup for this month has been censored. Next month, a column will return, as long as it passes Legal”.

Senior Sergeant Maxwell explained the decision in the June journal, published online this week.

“There was some conjecture that perhaps I had been censored by the Queensland Police Service, the Government, or even the union itself,” he wrote.

“This is not the case.

“...Last month I submitted my proposed article to the editor and flagged that it may require legal review to safeguard the union against a defamation action.

“As requested, a legal review of my article was undertaken and it was the view of an independent, external defamation expert that the article contained highly actionable content.

“... For those of you who continue to ask, the content of last month’s article was me ‘outing’ and commenting on several high ranking government employees and elected politicians who have criminal records.

“Some of these quite serious previous convictions are now ‘unpublishable’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

“All I will say is that one person I was going to mention ... I give him the nickname of the ‘Brazilian’.”

When approached by Fairfax Media, Senior Sergeant Maxwell said he still wanted to reveal the information, because he believed the public had a right to know.

“While I would like to expose those government officials with previous convictions, because of the special position of responsibility they hold in our society, their integrity should be beyond reproach.

"I have received legal advice it would be inappropriate to do so,” he said.

And for good reason, Mr O’Gorman said.

“It could have significant employment and personal consequences,” he said.

“Just imagine you stole $3000 from your employer 10 years ago.  You had been rehabilitated and moved on with your life but then, through the actions of an individual police officer, your past was outed.

“You would lose your job.  You could lose your standing.  All for a mistake you had moved on from.

“That is why those laws exist, no matter who you are, you deserve a chance to move on.”