Lawyers for Alan Jones have lost an eleventh-hour bid to prevent media reporting on the evidence of complainants in his indecent assault and sexual touching trial.

In a surprise development on Friday, Jones’ legal team argued journalists could not report on the evidence of six men who have accused the former broadcaster of unwanted kissing and touching between 2003 and 2020.

Jones has always maintained his innocence and will defend the charges in the Local Court trial, starting in Sydney’s Downing Centre court complex on Monday.

Members of the public cannot sit in court during the complainants’ evidence because this part of the hearing will be held “in camera”, meaning behind closed doors. The identity of the complainants is protected.

However, there are provisions in the state’s criminal procedure laws allowing the media to be present in court during their evidence.

Barrister Claire O’Neill, acting for Jones, told Judge Glenn Walsh on Friday that those provisions allowed journalists to observe the evidence but not to report on it.

O’Neill argued that allowing journalists to be present in the courtroom enabled them to understand and report on “the outcome of the proceedings or the evidence of other witnesses”, but did not allow the complainants’ evidence itself to be reported.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions told the judge that typically media reporting on the complainants’ evidence would be permitted in these circumstances, but the identity of the complainants could not be revealed.

The judge asked if Jones’ legal team was really making an application for a suppression or non-publication order. “No, your honour,” O’Neill replied.

O’Neill referred to a report of the NSW Law Reform Commission which she submitted contained a statement to the effect that “a decision to close a court … [prohibits] information given in those proceedings from being published”.

“That’s not binding on me,” the judge said. “That’s the Law Reform Commission in a discussion paper.

“That would mean the evidence of a complainant could never be published, in your submission.”

O’Neill disagreed.

Seven media outlets, including this masthead and the ABC, were legally represented during Friday’s hearing to argue in support of the judge permitting contemporaneous reporting of the complainants’ evidence.

Amelia CausleyTodd, acting for the media outlets, said the purpose of the provisions allowing the media to observe complainants’ evidence behind closed doors was to enable reporting of the evidence.

“Parliament enacted the provision for that very reason,” CausleyTodd said.

In his decision on Friday rejecting the submissions by Jones’ team, Walsh said it was clear from parliamentary speeches that the provision allowing journalists to observe the evidence of complainants was “never intended to stop, per se, the publication of evidence”.

He granted the media outlets – Nine, the ABC, The Guardian, Network Ten, Seven Network, Nationwide News, and AAP – permission to “enter and remain in the courtroom” while the evidence of the first complainant is given. This will enable the evidence to be reported.

The media outlets are expected to seek permission to observe and report the evidence of the remaining five complainants separately.

Be the first to know when major news happens. Sign up for breaking news alerts on email or turn on notifications in the app.