Channel 7

Samantha Armytage and Rebecca Gibney exposed as frivolous in 7 sex scandal defamation case

The likelihood that Channel 7 Sunrise host Samantha Armytage and actress Rebecca Gibney had sexual relationships with Seven West Media CEO Tim Worner is almost certain given their frivolous and vexatious defamation claim against me. Otherwise they would have just denied the claim and that would have been the end of it. I filed my defence on Tuesday (17/1/17) and it is not me who has serious questions to answer but the applicants Armytage and Gibney.

The real story in this matter isn’t the sexual relationships and cocaine use by CEO Tim Worner but the millions of dollars of shareholder’s money spent trying to cover it up. The attempted cover-up continues to this day with the defamation case against me and the legal threats from Seven West Media going out to most of the Australian media over the last few weeks. This is happening with the Directors full knowledge and consent which makes them just as liable as Tim Worner.

The defence statement covers 7 key areas:

1. Introduction 2. Defences 3. Email evidence 4. Lawyer Justine Munsie and the judicial favours / bribery scam 5. Reply to Justice Stephen Campbell and barrister Sandy Dawson’s defamatory comments and the fact that they should be nowhere near the case. 6. Seven West Media driving the matter & 7. A copy of the Deed of Release between Amber Harrison and Seven West Media dated 14th of November 2014 and signed by Bruce McWilliam on behalf of Seven. (Click here for a copy of the defence document) (Click here for a copy of the Deed of Release between Amber Harrison and Seven West Media)


The defamation claim against me is frivolous and vexatious and is easily defendable on numerous grounds. The most obvious defence is section 27 of the Defamation Act which is the “Defence of absolute privilege” given that both the applicants were named in legal documents that were tendered by Amber Harrison as part of her claim at the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The legal team running the claim on behalf of the applicants are Kerry Stokes’ and Channel Seven’s lawyers and they currently have 2 other proceedings afoot against me as well. The first was instituted via an ex parte hearing and a super-injunction on behalf of Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie in April 2014 with his son Ryan Stokes being added as an applicant in 2015. They have drawn out the proceedings as long as possible and even breached a court order in December 2015 to approach the court to have the matter set down for final hearing. It is now set down for final hearing on the 24th and 25th of April 2017 which I doubt they will show up.

In October 2016 the same lawyers instituted defamation proceedings against me again via an ex parte hearing and a super-injunction on behalf of Capilano Honey and its CEO Ben McKee. Capilano Honey is 20% owned by Kerry Stokes and it is obviously being controlled by him given the case. Capilano Honey have failed to prosecute the case and there is no future court date.

The main reason Capilano Honey and Ben McKee sued me is because I wrote an article saying they are knowingly selling poisonous and toxic honey. In November 2016 Capilano Honey published a statement calling on the federal government to ban certain pesticides. Why? Because their bees and honey are being poisoned which explains why they have failed to prosecute the frivolous and vexatious case against me.

It total the lawyers have had at least 5 ex parte hearings where they never tell me that they are going to court and have orders made against me. I have raised this with ICAC and will likely do so again as well as other law enforcement authorities.

Kerry Stokes who is ultimately in charge of this matter has a long history of running frivolous and vexatious court cases. The most famous is the C7 case or as it became known “Kerry Stokes vs The World”.

In 2002 “Seven launched what is considered to be the largest ever media lawsuit in Australia, naming 22 defendants including Nine, Ten, Optus, Austar, the AFL, the NRL, Fox Sports, PBL and Telstra. Primarily basing the claim on anti-competitive provisions in Part IV of the Trade Practices Act.

Kerry Stokes gave evidence in the case and it ended badly. In 2007:

A FEDERAL Court judge has accused Seven Network boss Kerry Stokes of giving “deliberately false” evidence in his failed C7 pay TV case and condemned the action’s $200 million legal bill as a “scandalous” waste.”

You would think Kerry Stokes would have learnt his lesson but he never did and still today he runs frivolous and vexatious court cases trying to hide his crimes and destroy people and this matter is another one of them.

It must be noted as the evidence below shows the applicants are being represented by the lawyer Justine Munsie not Martin O’Connor as the court documents show which is scandalous and criminal.

There has been no affidavits filed by either applicant, Samantha Armytage or Rebecca Gibney, and there is no doubt that these proceedings are being paid for and driven by Kerry Stokes and Seven West Media. (Click here to read the defence)

Defences – DEFAMATION ACT 2005

25 Defence of justification

It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.

27 Defence of absolute privilege

(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that it was published on an occasion of absolute privilege.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), matter is published on an occasion of absolute privilege if:

(b) the matter is published in the course of the proceedings of an Australian court or Australian tribunal, including (but not limited to):

(i) the publication of matter in any document filed or lodged with, or otherwise submitted to, the court or tribunal (including any originating process), and

Other defences are:

30 Defence of qualified privilege for provision of certain information

33 Defence of triviality


Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, Seven West Media CEO Tim Worner, Channel Seven’s Sunrise executive producer Michael Pell and Sunrise host Samantha Armytage – October 2014


Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2017 12:12 AM
Subject: Criminal offences in Seven sex and drug scandal by Bruce McWilliam, Kerry Stokes, Ryan Stokes, Tim Worner and the other Seven West Media Directors

Dear Kerry Stokes, Ryan Stokes, Dr Michelle Deaker, Sheila McGregor, Peter Gammell and other Seven West Media Directors

I am writing to you all in regards to information I have received in relation to the four women named by Amber Harrison, in her evidence to the Australian Human Rights Commission, as other sexual partners of Seven West Media CEO Tim Worner.

It has come to my attention that the 3 of the 4 women who still work at Seven West Media were told in a rude and bullying manner in an email sent by Bruce McWilliam that they had been named by Amber Harrison in the Human Rights Commission evidence as being sexual partners of Tim Worner and “told” that they would be represented by Seven’s lawyers. This I understand has only happened in the last couple of weeks and that the women were not given the option of seeking their own legal advice. I also understand they were made to sign a legal document denying a sexual relationship with Tim Worner yet they were never asked whether they had ever had sex with Tim Worner. In fact, there was no investigation.

So how can Seven West Media issue press releases denying the sex allegations with the four women if the company has never asked them if it was true or not? Better still how can Seven justify paying for frivolous defamation proceedings?

If the above is true then it is a clear-cut case of attempting to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy to pervert they course of justice and intimidating witnesses. It might be argued that the alleged crimes could not have taken place because there was no legal case afoot at the time. I would like to raise two issues to knock that defence on the head. Firstly, it has been reported that Amber Harrison has until the 10th of January 2017 to decide how she will progress her Australian Human Rights Commission case and given that her lawyers and Seven had been communicating for over 2 years it would not be hard to guess that other legal avenues might be pursued.

Secondly, Seven West Media were quick to threaten and proceed with defamation action so it is obvious that having the women sign the legal letter was motivated by the likely defamation action that has eventuated and there is plenty of precedents that support a situation like that. The obvious precedent that comes to mind is the Heiner Affair.

Can you please confirm that besides Samantha Armytage and Rebecca Gibney the other 2 women named by Amber Harrison in her evidence to the Australian Human Rights Commission are Jennifer Stone (nee Davis) and Eleanor Good. If that is correct can you please explain why Seven West Media shareholders are paying legal fees to represent Jennifer Stone (nee Davis) when she no longer works for the company?

It is my understanding that David Leckie, Bruce McWilliam and most people in Seven’s Pyrmont building were aware of the long-term affair between Jennifer Stone (nee Davis) and Tim Worner. Can you confirm this? How do you explain the fact that Jennifer Stone went from being Tim Worner’s PA in 2011 to 2nd Assistant Director on Home & Away at the time they were regular engaging in shouting matches in the office in front of other staff?

Can you please confirm that Guy Alexander of Allens Lawyers is advising on the “Independent inquiry”? Hardly independent is he given his snout has been in the Seven West Media trough for millions of dollars before.

Pleased respond ASAP as I may have follow-up questions.


Shane Dowling

Two days after sending the above email on the 5th January 2017 it was reported in the media that Seven West Media are not only investigating the Amber Harrison matter but also payments to other personal assistants.

I did get a response to the above email which is part of my defence. (Click here to read the defence) They claim the women didn’t sign any legal letters which contradicts News Corp’s report which they haven’t redacted. And they also claim “Our firm has been engaged separately by each of our clients who have instructed us directly as is appropriate”. So, all four women thought to themselves “I know what I’ll do I’ll ring Addisons Lawyers”. What a joke.

Correction: It was reported in the media on the 23rd of December 2016 that there was a suppression order not to name me and this website in relation to the defamation case. This is untrue. I was not in court that day but understand that it was discussed in court between the barrister and judge but no orders were issued in relation to that. (Click here to read the orders) A Fairfax Media journalist told me via email they have decided not to name me or this website so they do not drive traffic to the website which means self-censorship by the Australian media is alive and well.

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

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)

If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.

Thank you for your support.

13 replies »

  1. Go get ’em!! You have more courage than just about the entire “justice” system put together. Never trust a man in a wig and a dress!! The truth will out and throughout all, your head held high says a lot. Thanks.

  2. I agree with Jamelise’s last sentence. My only worry is that your legal colleagues are so far totally absent from contributing to true justice re the main players in this case (or should I say cases!). I have contributed to your cause and will continue to do so. Australia needs more people like you! Please keep up the good work!

  3. The whole justice system stinks, why, Armytage and Gibney will swear, “To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
    They will lie, most likely under fear of their boss’s post court action if they don’t lie.
    If they lie, so what, there is no fear of burning in hell, and damnation to them for eternity and I hope you find a ‘Sword of Damocles’ to hang over the judicial shysters.

  4. I’m amazed how you recall all the details and links so accurately. You have an incredible mind. Don’t let them back you into a corner. Hopefully your efforts to fight corruption will bare fruit with more journalists, judges and MPs getting on board the integrity train.

  5. One has to laugh.
    Last week or so I was sitting in Qeens Square. A camera man came and pointed his camera at me from about two metres with a bright light and asked if I wanted to comment on the Susan Leay situation.
    I noted that his offsider had a ‘7’ identification rope and badge.
    Whilst declining their entreaty, I asked how Ms. Harrison was going and that other fellow, ‘whathisname’ was.
    Well, did they turn on their heals and almost ran away.
    Love it, gave me the best laugh of the week. Thanks KC….? They are real runners! One can sit in peace now when channel 7 are about.

  6. I wonder if the relevant judiciary officials and legal bulldogs engaged in this Stokes stoked stockade of self-assuming privileged individuals, will expect their case to be copiously seasoned with judiciary “discretions” and “the prosecutorial powers of their discretion” as sought by or even offered from time to time to those litigators that consider themselves to be of some higher echelon.
    Particularly so when it comes down to these types of litigator initiated court actions, vexatiously lodged upon individuals considered by the snobbery of law to be of lesser station and lesser financial capacity.

  7. I am interested in how the legal practitioners and judicial officials can proceed with the instructions received from persons associated with 7 media as to the basis that enables such a litigation case to proceed.

    First up of course and primarily so is, what or where is, the material evidence that has permitted a claim of defamation to be lodged against you?

    (In my understanding there cannot be such (as per this nominated case) a claim lodged when the offending or defaming offence is claimed to have occurred, when there is proof or “implicit truth” contained in the alleged defamatory offence.)

    There must be factual material evidence presented to the court, (not merely the notion of, or just a verbal stated claim) in order that the court can then provide their unbiased adjudicative or judgement powers that they are so empowered to dispense judgement decisions.
    Also I am of the mind that judgement simply cannot be legally purchased.

    I would like to think that some form of clarification is required as to what it is, as opposed to what is not, that becomes the actual substance or basis that is alleged to be defamatory, in order to allow this court process to proceed.

    • Hey, William. we are talking about lawyers and Australian courts here. I went through five sessions with the Qld Supreme Court. Twice I wasn`t notified that the sessions were taking place, once my barrister stood up and said he knew nothing about the case, once I was blackmailed by the opposition barrister by threats against my 11 year old daughter and once I tried to represent myself and the judge wouldn`t permit it. I wasn`t allowed a single chance to put my case forward. I should have stayed home the whole time and burnt my money for far less stress. It`s a closed system that only benefits lawyers and judges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s