On the eve of the 61-year-old's name finally becoming public, his lawyers filed an application seeking special leave to appeal.

The move drags the secrecy saga, which began more than two years ago, to a fourth and final court for determination.

The matter began in the ACT Magistrates Court in May 2020, when the offender was arrested and charged with possessing child abuse material.

Magistrate Glenn Theakston banned publication of the man's name in order to protect a relative of the offender, who was thought to be at risk of self-harm if he was identified.

The 61-year-old, who resigned from his role in the upper echelons of a Commonwealth department after being charged, subsequently pleaded guilty.

When he faced the ACT Supreme Court to be sentenced, it was revealed his career had come crashing down because of a "sexual fantasy email" he had attempted to send.

While exchanging messages with a UK woman he knew as "Liz", the top former bureaucrat attached computer-generated images of child abuse material to an email.

The files may never have reached their intended recipient because the man's Gmail account was suspended shortly after he attached them.

Former chief justice Helen Murrell convicted the offender and sentenced him in May last year to a $100 recognisance release order, under the terms of which he was subject to supervision by ACT Corrective Services for six months.

MORE COURT AND CRIME NEWS:

She also revoked the non-publication order made by Mr Theakston but, when the offender immediately signalled an intention to appeal, she had to issue an interim order in its place.

The ACT Court of Appeal last month dismissed the man's challenge, with a 2-1 majority finding no error in the former chief justice's decision.

The appeal judges extended the interim non-publication order for 28 days, giving reasons that included allowing the offender to remain anonymous while considering further rights of appeal.

The man would have been identifiable on Wednesday had he not lodged the special leave application to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision in the High Court.

While that application is awaiting judgment, the man's name must remain secret.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: