Justice Ian Harrison

Sandy Dawson Barrister-at-law. He’s not even a private of the court let alone an officer of the court

One of the reasons Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie are suing me for defamation is that they object to me calling them perjurers which they claim they are not. So what do they do? They sue me for defamation and send in the  junior barrister Sandy Dawson to lie and deceive the court from the bar table in clear breach of the solicitors rules and barrister rules. How do I know Sandy Dawson lied and deceived the court and what is the evidence to support that? The evidence is that I was there and heard him, the transcript and also Justice Harrison in his judgement indirectly said so.

Barristers and lawyers lie and deceive in courts around the country on a daily basis and Kerry Stokes  junior barrister Sandy Dawson is no different. Mr Dawson claims one of his specialities is defamation when the reality is that Mr Dawson can only be described as an incompetent fool at best. I will be telling the truth about Mr Dawson and truth is a standard defence in any defamation proceeding so there is nothing Sandy Dawson can do as long as I am truthful.

The problem that Sandy Dawson has is he is more than happy to defame and lie about people in court. A lot of barristers and lawyers think they have immunity when they are in court and can do anything they want as they generally get away with it. They fail to realise that there is now a new body to keep them accountable and that is social media and blogs etc. This is a point that Kerry Stokes is well aware of based on paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of Justine Munsie’s affidavit where they say they have written to Google to have my blog taken out of the search results for their names. (Click her to read the affidavit)

Somehow Mr Dawson has managed to represent some of the major media companies in the country including The Australian, Fairfax Media, Seven West Media and also 2GB host Ray Hadley. 


On the 14th of April Kerry Stokes an his lawyer Justine Munsie instituted defamation proceedings against me and had a suppression order put on it so no details could be published. On the 16th of April I published a post titled Kerry Stokes has suppression order put on defamation proceedings against KCA publisher”. The following day we were in court to argue the notice of motion for the suppression order.

The following week on Thursday (24/4/14) Justice Harrison handed down his judgement which was in my favour. There never was any justification for the suppression order. The defamation proceedings and application for contempt by Kerry Stokes continue.

Sandy Dawson knew what he was doing was wrong and a breach of his ethical duty. But he is one of the arrogant ones who thinks he is above the law and unaccountable to anyone and thinks he runs the courts. ( For further background information click on the link – Kerry Stokes defamation trial)

The suppression order protecting Junior Barrister Sandy Dawson and the Lawyers

Mr Dawson tried to stop me writing and publishing about his dodgy conduct by having a suppression order put on the matter protecting himself and the other lawyers.

The exact section was e. any matter of and concerning the plaintiffs, or their legal representatives (being the firm Addisons, Martin O’Connor, Richard Keegan and Sandy Dawson) which is calculated to expose any of them to hatred, ridicule and contempt. (This shows up at paragraph 1, section 4 (e) of Justice Harrison’s judgement)

Mr Dawson was worried I would write material that would expose him to “hatred, ridicule and contempt”. Well I suppose I am, by telling the truth about Mr Dawson and his corrupt conduct. Interestingly Mr Dawson was happy to ridicule me and this site when we were in court.

Sandy Dawson and his history representing media companies

It is worth having a look at some of the cases Mr Dawson has appeared in because it leaves no room for someone to believe that lack of knowledge was the reason Mr Dawson has erred in my matters. Once we can rule at lack of knowledge as a justification then all Mr Dawson has left is knowingly and deliberate corrupt conduct as a reason for his conduct.

Craig Thomson matter – Sandy Dawson was front and centre representing Fairfax Media when Craig Thomson sued them for defamation. (Click here to read more)

In the Gina Rinehart family dispute Sandy Dawson represented the media which included at least Fairfax and News Ltd.

”The proper reporting of these proceedings has been stymied for three months now,” the barrister representing the media in the case, Sandy Dawson, said of the application for a further stay on publication.

”A stay [of today’s decision] could seriously undermine public confidence, not only in the act, but in open justice more generally,” he said. (Click her to read more)

The Rinehart matter was a family issue so it is understandable that there would be an interim suppression order put on it when requested, but that was eventually taken off. It is totally different to my matter which Mr Dawson knew and Mr Stokes was not entitled to any suppression order.

Mr Dawson was quoted in The Australian as saying:

Appearing for media interests, including The Australian, Sandy Dawson characterised Mrs Rinehart’s latest attempt to have the case suppressed as “an abuse of process”, pointing out that she had just attempted to buy a larger stake in Fairfax to “increase her public profile in Australia”. (Click here to read more)

So Mr Dawson says what Mrs Rinehart did was “an abuse of process” but it is OK for Kerry Stokes.

Some other cases Sandy Dawson has acted in include for Ray Hadley in the bullying case and Channel 7 when they halted the Simon Gittany murder trial by harassing the accused before court.

Sandy Dawson breaching the Barrister Rules and Solicitors Rules

Sandy Dawson was lying while in court like there was no tomorrow, he thought he was smart. The reality is he is a fool as all he was doing was giving me content for this site as I write about corrupt conduct like his. What he was doing is almost as good as him signing a confession for his criminal conduct. The fact that he went for a suppression order says he knew I was going to publish what he did. Yet it did not stop him. So why not? He must think he is above the law and can do whatever he likes when he is in the Supreme Court of NSW. I think Chief Justice Tom Bathurst needs to clean up his court.

Mr Dawson used a precedent called Y and Z v W [2007] NSWCA 329; (Click here to read the judgement) to try to justify why there should be a suppression order on my case.

The problem for Stokes and Munsie was that my case was nothing like the precedent and they refused to write affidavits telling lies to make them sound similar. They relied on Mr Dawson making up lies while we were in court to make the 2 cases sound alike which Mr Dawson was happy to do. I went into it in further detail in the previous post (Click here to read)

Justice Harrison said at section 47 ……On the evidence before me, I reject entirely any suggestion or submission that Mr Stokes has been, or that a reasonable person in his position would be, intimidated by Mr Dowling.

The key part is “I reject entirely any suggestion or submission”. In other words Sandy Dawson was lying which he was. And Mr Dawson lied many other times which you can see in several parts of the judgement.

Section 63 of the Barrister Rules says:

63. A barrister must not allege any matter of fact in: (a) any court document settled by the barrister; (b) any submission during any hearing; (c) the course of an opening address; or(d) the course of a closing address or submission on the evidence;

unless the barrister believes on reasonable grounds that the factual material already available provides a proper basis to do so.

As the judge clearly pointed out there was never any “factual material already available” which means Sandy Dawson never had a “proper basis”  to “allege any matter of fact”. In other words Sandy Dawson never had any evidence to support his statement of facts and is clearly guilty of breaching section 63 and should be struck off as a barrister.

Sandy Dawson is also in breach of section 19.1 A of the Solicitor Rules.A solicitor must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.” If you go through the solicitors rules Mr Dawson is in breach of the rules all over the place. Each state is different and Mr Dawson might argue he is no longer a lawyer but a barrister. Well Barristers Rule 26 says: 26. A barrister must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the Court.

I detailed further breaches of the Barristers Rules by Mr Dawson on pages 16,17 and 18 in an affidavit that I filed. Sandy Dawson and others need to understand that the days of thinking they can act in the illegal manner in which they do and no one will know is over. When barristers and lawyers lie in court they are denying someone justice or at least trying to.

The legal website Justinian which is run by Richard Ackland ran a story on Friday on the above matter. What it says I do not know as it is behind a paywall but it is good to see someone has picked it up. The title of the story is: Kerry – Not Stoked

The proceedings could drag out a while so I have set a specific page (Kerry Stokes defamation trial) which is in the second line of the menu bar at the top of the page. I will update that page when minor issues arise and only do another post on the matter when something important happens in the cases.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and promote this post.

This site is independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Click on the below button to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options (Click here to go to the Donations page)

And make sure you follow this site by email which is at the top right of this page and about once a week you be notified when there is a new post on this site.

Thank you for your support.


37 replies »

  1. Shane not being totally intimate with the case my comments can only be of moral support for you, as I have followed your blog for some time now and referred to it many times to friends here in the United States. I don’t know what the dickens has gone wrong with Attorney’s, Solicitors, Barristers these days, but there appears to be a growing number that must think of themselves as 007 and a Half (Licensed to Lie).

    • In my thoughts and in my prayers Shane, you have my full support as I have heard and seen it all. So good to see people like you, who stands up for what they believe in.

  2. An honest barrister is indeed a rare beast, if you find one they will tell you that lies and deceit are all part of courtroom behaviour. Most rely on the rather apt “Whatever it takes” phrase from Grahame Richardson, the well known labor honest broker, little wonder we see so many in politics.

  3. I am so sick of people thinking that it is alright to lie whether it be in their personal life or in their job especially when those lies affect others income, job or livelihood. I resigned from a fairly well paid job because I could not in good conscience deceive customers into thinking the product (the company was pushing at the time) did all it was supposed to do. In that short period my health deteriorated as I worried about elderly customers and families paying for a service that could not be delivered as promised. Dishonesty in the judicial system by those who are supposed to serve the courts is inexcusable and totally unacceptable. Those with no conscience will apparently do anything for the almighty dollar but I hope that Karma comes back to bite them hard. I find it very telling that a lot of politicians come from a Legal and or Union background where they have never done a hard days work in their lives and have no understanding of what struggle street is like. I can honestly say that I could NEVER be bought off or be corrupted by either power or money. My personal ethics would not allow it, Shame that more of these corrupt Pollies and Judges do not have Personal Ethics and live by them!
    Keep up the excellent fight Shane, One can only hope that TRUTH will win out because there really is no other answer to the TRUTH.

  4. Shane, this must be a dreadful imposition on your time and your life.

    The problem is, that in their opinion you have had the audacity to speak the truth about
    whatever, and they have the money and the resources to sue!

    There is a so-called politician at present doing the same, he is buying votes, but reckons he only gets the support of what ‘he said’.
    He is suing everybody as well.

    And this new brand of solicitor/barrister are able to bend words/sentences and most of the Judges are in the same ship.

    I respect you for what you are doing, this is the only way, we will eventually get some more justice in this country, it is sorely needed.

  5. No wonder we have to put up with this kind of legal fraternity. I don’t think that any honest and decent person would ever follow a career like that.

  6. Many in the legal profession are lying cheating crooks. Then they rise to sit on The Bench….Yes, there are those still with some integrity. I have to….I need to…believe this. I will never understand how a Barrister will defend a person knowing full well he is defending a vile creature, yet this Barrister will do all he/she can to discredit the victims and witnesses. I do know there are some Barristers who will not take a case if they know the person is guilty. They are few and far between, but they do exist. Just like I have to believe there are some decent Magistrates and Judges.

  7. I wish you luck Shane
    I have been ripped off twice, quite badly actually.
    The legal service commissioner is a toothless tiger.
    I have lost faith in the justice system.

  8. We do not have a justice system in this country, just a legal system which is based on lies and deceipt aided and abetted by the evidence rules to stop the truth coming out. This is how dishonest lawyers such as Sandy Dawson make their money. The whole system stinks based on rapacious greed of the legal business. Good luck Shane and I hope the Judge is not an old law school mate of the pursuing lawyers. After all, they are a cartel. Good luck Shane.

  9. Hi Shane,
    I have just made another ad hoc donation in order to assist you to “maintain the rage,” to paraphrase a former Prime Minister. In your case the phrase at least has righteous foundation.
    I too was once wrongly sued for defamation and am aware of the range of defences against the complaint and am aware that “truth” alone may be insufficient to prevail when corrupt individuals or forces unconscionably use the Courts to inflict damage on individuals who expose their behaviour. The claim against me was withdrawn during “mediation” and I was reimbursed all of my costs, but it took up 12 months of my time and I spent many sleepless nights working on my defence. I was ably advised by a very good solicitor and a barrister she recommended. I can provide you with names if you would like me to. The barrister specialises in defamation law and his chambers are in Sydney.
    I hope your outcome is as satisfactory, as was mine, and wish there was more we, who follow you with cadging admiration, could do more to assist. I trust my modest financial contribution will help you to prevail and to maintain your endeavours.
    Keep up the good work!

  10. Shane I note that justice Harrison referred to we readers of your website as disenfranchised folk who have had bad experiences with the court system and have a need to vent – I would like to simply reply that while some obviously have been burnt by our dysfunctional court system, in my case I simply want to know and seek the truth about our court custodians. That’s how I came to this website. I hope in time that you have enough readers/subscribers that you and we are not seen with some contempt as a small inconvenience to those in power.

    • That comment by Justice Harrison did not go unnoticed by me. I do not think any judge is ever going to say anything overly positive about this site given I name corrupt judges. But the people in power are well aware they will need to address sites like this one in the very near future if not now. It might not be obvious to all yet but the online community do have power and it is growing.

      • Shane, you are now to us here and into the future to a much wider public will be a very powerful and fair minded leader for the voiceless ones and the tens of thousands of innocent Australian citizens who have been gravely harmed and left penniless by OUR so called justice system by the top end down shameless and heartless ego maniacs in uniforms, suits and wigs etc.
        The ordinary and average person on the street are now finally waking up in mass to the foul smells of hell emanating from those law courts and they want them to be named, shamed and sacked.
        Even main stream media is also demanding it is in the interest of the Australian people to know of any public servants (in all departments) be named and dealt with for their unacceptable conduct.
        Such rotten to the core and disgusting behaviour of some so called respectable learned men and women in our public office of public services are blood sucking parasites and need to be sacked pronto and stripped of all their pay and perks–you got it coming.

    • justice harrison, it’s fantastic to see that you are keeping an eye on this site! the people are watching you all too. let justice be done and be seen to be done!

      no, we are not “disenfranchised”. ditto to all that gary said above.

      in a previous post a “fan” of yours, “harry the bondi lawyer” said a few things which need a response and is relevant here:

      re: “The system isnt perfect and any practitioner would agree with that”

      so why isn’t harry, or you, or any other lawyer or judge shouting out demanding the system be overhauled? answer: the system suits many of you JUST FINE the way it is – a person denied justice apparently is of little concern – money, power, appeasing the powerful and keeping the status quo are.

      re: “the application was made without notice to Shane” and “our legal system is not inquisitorial but adversarial, meaning that the judge relies on the evidence presented to him rather than undertake his own investigation” and “an ex-parte order… is usually only made for a very short period of time”

      so hang on…the order was made without shane’s presence/knowledge/argument but the judge does not need to investigate if the information provided is factual??? really? is that not a serious problem in the system that needs overhauling? 3 minutes, 3 days or 3 years of violating someone’s rights is still violating someone’s rights. so then if justice is of primary concern, dawson, munsie, stokes etc should really be up the creek for what they’ve done right? i can’t wait for that contempt of court finding against them.

      p.s. just like the real estate institute seems to act in the best interests of the real estate industry and NOT consumers, i wouldn’t expect any different from the court and the legal services commission – i’m expecting them to hide and protect their own rather than punish them. again, now you know why we are all so concerned.

  11. I suppose this is the time to point out that Lawyers, Barristers etc aren’t there for us. They are there to guide us through the system, and their ultimate aim is to preserve the integrity of the system that keeps them fed and watered. As probe bono said above, we do not have a justice system. We in fact have a system of laws designed to preserve the supremacy of the State and Courts and those who operate them. The Lawyer you employ does not work for you, he works for them, even though he will gouge you financially, he will never truly work for you.

  12. Thank you Justice Harrison, for your condescensing comment, you have not impressed me.
    I am indeed an ordinary person, but am very proud to advise you, that I am very much respected.
    I cannot say that at present I have respect for you.

    • As that song goes—“NO WAY, GET F###ed, F OFF”–and must be sung with great gusto at the top of our voices all around Australia.
      I think such parts of that song should be included into a National Anthem for the millions of free thinking Aussies dedicated to this country.

  13. Defamation occurs at a logarithmic rate on social media. Any judge or billionaire who wants to make a hooey about a single blogger should drink a cup of cement and embrace the 21st century.

    • i believe you were meant to say “exponential rate” right? in any case i reckon most bloggers, especially when they have a site such as KCOA, would be very careful to not defame someone. i’m pretty confident he has evidence to back up anything he writes.

  14. It’s interesting to see that on the “Kerry Stokes defamation trial” page it was updated to say that “The below Notice of Motion was heard… today…and reserved his judgement.” and there has been nothing else mentioned.

    Has Shane been silenced (unlawfully?) or is there another post coming soon? A lot of us are very interested in this case. Why did Justice Hall hear this now? Did Justice Harrison find it too hot and handballed it to someone else? Is this normal process? Is this a way to get out of finding Munsie/Dawson/Stokes in contempt of court by getting another judge to effectively say “I know nothing about what they have done”?

      • No way Shane, we won’t let you.
        Even if it crosses your mind when your cross gets heavy–you are not alone..
        Many, many dedicated people are right behind you even if they can’t be right beside you—we are still here..
        You have a Higher Power guiding you, so who can be against you?
        They are no body of any importance to God–he’s sacked them all long ago.

      • Shane, I believe this case against you is being closely watched by your readership, simple calculation of 2500 subscribers/readers being stirred by the possible injustice of you being silenced, this turning to outrage and telling 4 friends that this could and is happening to all of us…..10,000 people then hammering the appropriate legal councils, local politicians….this connecting up with other blogs……Mmmmmmm this could be interesting.

  15. I just came across this story, no surprises, i was and still am being falsely accused of having a mental illness by a lawyer who submited false and tampered with documents, made false allegations and told a detective “she has a mental illness” when i reported his predatory client to the police. I wrote a complaint to the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board, interestingly they felt this particular lawyer (who is well associated with the law society) had done nothing wrong ??? The corruption runs deep and is well networked. Good on you Shane for standing up for what is just and right.

Leave a Reply