On Wednesday (15/3/17) in the matter Jane Doe 1 v Shane Dowling I was found guilty of contempt of court for naming Samantha Armytage and Rebecca Gibney in the Tim Worner Sex, drug and fraud scandal.
The case in being paid for by Seven West Media and run directly by Kerry Stokes based on the evidence given by his lawyer Richard Keegan in court. Over the last 3 years Kerry Stokes and his companies have had at least 10 suppression orders issued against at least 3 social media users / whistleblowers including numerous against myself which is a scandal in itself.
National suppression order scandal – Victoria says they can’t trust the judges and call for an “Office of the Open Courts Advocate” to oversee the dodgy judges.
In researching suppression orders for this article, it is obvious Australia is facing a national scandal regarding dodgy suppression orders.
Corrupt Australian judges are issuing unjustified suppression orders like there is no tomorrow for their mates and it is a national scandal. Suppression orders are a powerful tool for the corrupt to conceal their crimes and judges are in on the scam. In Victoria, they are currently reviewing suppression orders because the judges cannot be trusted and the same should happen in NSW if not across the whole country.
In October 2015, it was reported that “Court suppression orders still issued in their hundreds in Victoria” and “Open justice is elusive despite the 2013 Open Courts Act. Suppression orders continue to be issued in great numbers by Victorian courts, and in some cases without giving a reason for the order.“ (Click here to read more)
By November 2016 a review of the suppression orders was announced by the Victoria state government. (Click here to read more)
Background to the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 matter
In December 2016 Amber Harrison issued a media statement regarding her ongoing battle with Seven West Media and their treatment of her after she revealed she was having an affair with Seven West Media CEO Tim Worner while she was an employee at Seven.
Numerous journalists were also given a copy of Amber Harrison’s complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission that named at least 4 other women that Amber Harrison says had sexual relationships with Tim Worner. I named 2 of the women, Samantha Armytage and Rebecca Gibney, in an article that I published on the 20/12/2016 stating that Amber Harrison had named them in her AHRC complaint.
Seven West Media paid lawyers instituted defamation proceedings against me using the 2 women as a front, getting a suppression order at an ex parte hearing (secret hearing) so no one could name them, so the company could sue me and protect the Chairman Kerry Stokes, CEO Tim Worner and others at SWM. This is very obvious given the evidence that has come out and given the women could easily issue a denial and that would be the end of it for them.
The whole Australian public know there is something badly wrong when suppression orders are issued in a matter like this because we are issued to watching TV or reading papers and magazines all the time with a lot worse allegations against people but they are not entitled to suppression orders.
In the last few week SWM lawyers have tried to add 2 other women to the defamation case, Eleanor Good and Jennifer Stone (nee Davis), and interim suppression orders were also issued to stop naming them.
The legality of suppression orders for all four women was argued in court before Justice Lucy McCallum on Monday the 13th March 2017 and she reserved her judgement. When she will hand down her judgement is unknown but my guess would be a week or two.
Then on the 15th March 2017 I was found guilty for naming the first 2 women.
None of the applicants have ever filed an affidavit denying the allegations that they had a relationship with Tim Worner. They have hidden behind an affidavit of their lawyer Richard Keegan who has been caught giving, in what I regard as being clearly perjured evidence, a few weeks ago. Nor have any of the applicants sued the person that made the allegations which is Amber Harrison and I suspect that is because Amber Harrison knows too much.
Copies of Amber Harrison’s AHRC complaint are all over the internet along with the names of the four women in it so it is way too late suing me anyhow. All they are doing is making more people want to know who they are but the reality is the defamation case is about protecting Kerry Stokes and Tim Worner etc. and that is why SWM are paying for it.
Why I breached the suppression orders
I breached suppression orders in 2014 and have done so several times since to stand up to ongoing abuse of the legal system by Kerry Stokes, judges and others. For example I am still in breach the Capilano Honey suppression orders from October 2016 for saying Capilano sell poisonous and toxic honey but they haven’t come anywhere near me again because they were in effect forced to admit it and have since called on the government to ban certain pesticides. (Kerry Stokes owns 20% of Capilano and they are using his lawyers)
Since then I have made a stand and have ignored dodgy and corruptly issued suppression orders.
NSW suppression laws
There is a clear rule when issuing suppression orders in NSW and that is there has to be an “exceptional circumstance” and what that “exceptional circumstance is has to be identified. Justice Stephen Campbell who issued the suppression orders for the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 on the 23rd of December 2016 has never identified what the exceptional circumstance is nor have the barristers that have represented them, Sandy Dawson SC and Kieran Smark SC, identified any exceptional circumstance.
Nor has the judge, Justice Michael Walton, who issued suppression orders for Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 identified an exceptional circumstance.
Why have they not identified any exceptional circumstance? Because none exist and the suppression orders are a scam and corruptly issued.
Exceptional circumstances are things like “blackmail and extortion cases and where disclosure of the information would seriously affect its commercial value” or maybe something like the name of an undercover police officer being suppressed otherwise the criminals would know who he or she is. Having someone say you slept with someone is not an exceptional circumstance as we read about that sort of thing every day. So to suggest it is an exception circumstance would be scandalous and that is why even their own barrister did not say it was an exceptional circumstance.
I put together a short document with the principle of open justice, a relevant precedent which is Rinehart v Welker  NSWCA 403 and the relevant Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) ground which the suppression order was issued. (Click here to read more)
The suppression order was issued on the basis of section 8(1)(e) which says: “it is otherwise necessary in the public interest for the order to be made and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice.“
But they refuse to say how it was in the “public interest” or what the “exceptional circumstance that made it in the public interest“.
Numerous judges have been keen to point out to me that I could go to jail for breaching court orders even if the court orders were later found to be null and void. Also, Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, Justice Clifton Hoeben and Registrar Christopher Bradford were given leave to institute contempt proceedings against me which they have also tried to hide behind a suppression order. (Click here to read more) Add that to the fact that I publish a judicial corruption website I am clearly a target for retribution from the judges.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind judges that they also could go to jail for conspiring to have someone falsely charged.
CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 34
Judge or magistrate acting oppressively or when interested
Acting when interested
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is a judge or magistrate; and
(b) the judge or magistrate perversely exercises jurisdiction in a matter; and
(c) the judge or magistrate has a personal interest in the matter; and
(d) the jurisdiction is federal jurisdiction.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years. (Click here to read more)
The above Section 34 is a Federal law and likely only covers federal judicial officers but similar state laws or laws like attempting to pervert the course of justice could be used against state judicial officers.
Justice Ian Harrison – Contempt judgment (Click here to read the judgement)
In Justice Ian Harrison’s judgement he also does not find any exceptional circumstance to justify Justice Stephen Campbell issuing the suppression orders that he found me guilty of breaching. In fact Justice Harrison’s judgement is a major distortion of the truth right throughout.
So, I in effect have been found guilty of breaching a dodgy suppression order that no one can justify. This is not the first time. I was found guilty of breaching a dodgy super-injunction in 2014 which was issued by none other than Justice Ian Harrison at another ex parte hearing which was also for the benefit of Kerry Stokes who didn’t want anyone to know he was personally suing me for defamation. I was fined $2000 but the whole conviction and fine was so corrupt the NSW Justice Department refused to enforce the fine and I never had to pay it. (Click here and here to read more)
The super-injunction suppression orders were so dodgy that a few days later Justice Harrison overturned his own orders. (Click here to read the judgement) I wrote about it at the time in a number of posts but was forced to take most of the posts down as they tried to cover their tracks but you can read about it on another website here, here, and here.
Nowhere in Justice Harrison’s judgement will you find him mention his previous suppression orders in 2014 for the benefit of Kerry Stokes which he clearly should have from a perceived bias viewpoint. I could have asked Justice Harrison to stand down from hearing the matter but he also could have stood down on his own accord which he didn’t. I thought given his past he wouldn’t be so stupid to act corruptly again but I was wrong
Jason Bosland from University of Melbourne wrote an article on the 1st March 2017 and said:
Open justice is a bedrock principle in liberal democratic systems of government. It is central to ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice and maintaining the rule of law. It keeps judges, who exercise power on behalf of the community, under constant scrutiny.
But my most recent research, which is to be published in the next issue of the Sydney Law Review, shows that open justice is increasingly being undermined in Victoria due to the inappropriate use of suppression orders by the courts. This is despite the Victorian Parliament’s intention to ‘strengthen and promote open justice’ by introducing the Open Courts Act in 2013.
There are, of course, legitimate reasons for suppression. Sometimes suppression orders are necessary to prevent prejudice to the fair trial of an accused. In other cases they can be made to protect the safety of a person or to protect the victim or witness in a case from suffering undue embarrassment. But what my research shows is that orders are increasingly broad and ambiguous in scope and that they often lack sufficient legal foundation.
A recent suppression order granted by the Supreme Court of Victoria last week has underscored some of the problems with the current approach to suppression orders in the Victorian courts. Regrettably, it does little to inspire confidence that the courts themselves can be left to their own devices to guard the principle of open justice. It also demonstrates that the media, who have traditionally taken on the important role of protecting open justice by challenging suppression orders in the courts, are increasingly incapable of protecting the principle into the future.
The author goes on to dissect a judgment by Justice Christopher Beale of the Supreme Court of Victoria that was suspect to say the least. (Click here to read more)
The last part of the above quote I have put in bold because it is increasingly up to people like me to stand our ground and help highlight dodgy and corrupt suppression orders as the mainstream media no longer have the finances to do so to the degree that is needed.
If someone wants to sue someone they can but when a court grants them a dodgy suppression order to hide behind it should be a concern for every Australian as it is out of control and is now a national scandal. The dodgy suppression orders are not only attack on the credibility and honesty of the judiciary but also a major attack on free speech and whistleblowers being able to expose corruption.
I expect a sentencing hearing to be in a few weeks and I will publish the time in the below comment section when I know when it is.
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.