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.
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  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.