Chief Justice Tom Bathurst

Free speech and political speech is being suppressed in Australia by the NSW Supreme Court

Suppression orders are being used to gag anyone and everyone in NSW and Victoria to conceal corruption. This week I was formally charged with contempt by the NSW Supreme Court. I can’t tell you everything because they put suppression orders on it but it relates to me making statements regarding judicial corruption involving 2 judges and a court registrar.

So the bottom line is the judges have used their own court to put suppression orders on their own case. It doesn’t get any more corrupt than that. Back in February when the ball first started rolling for a contempt case against me I wrote an article telling people what had happened and they have also charged me with contempt because I told people which they say breached the first suppression order they took out in February.

I won’t breach the court orders in this article to show how dodgy it is and show you what news will look like in the future if they are allowed to get away with their abuse of suppression orders.

It looks like I am about to be persecuted for my political beliefs because I’m trying to do something about judicial corruption. You always have to look on the positive and that is if they do try to persecute me, which they have already started with the court case, it will help highlight just how corrupt the judges are and how badly they need to be reined in.

Free speech and political speech in Australia

If you raise issues of government corruption or corruption within government departments you are protected from  prosecution. The reason you are protected is because it is political speech.

Beginning with a series of cases in 1992, the High Court has recognised that freedom of political communication is implied in the Australian Constitution. This freedom ‘enables the people to exercise a free and informed choice as electors’. (Click here to read more)

Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the implied right to freedom of political communication found in the Australian Constitution.

“They accepted that communications alleging corruption of police were protected by the implied right to freedom of political communication. They also accepted that political communication could include insults. Further, they noted that insulting words were a well-known tradition in Australian politics from “its earliest history”.” (Click here to read more)

Not only does it cover alleging corruption by police but any government employee including judges.

Three previous issues that I have raised are the widespread use of ex parte hearings (secret hearings), dodgy suppression orders and a paedophile priest getting 3 months jail after abusing 3 boys. All these issues need to be investigated by authorities, are clearly political speech, and raise issues of government corruption.

Most of the articles on this website are political speech in that they deal with government in one way or another.

Suppression orders – Only allowed in exceptional circumstances

I covered suppression orders in a recent article and how “Australia is facing a national scandal regarding dodgy suppression orders“. (Click here to read the article)

It has recently been brought to my attention that even law firms have had a enough of judges issuing the suppression orders with no regard for the law.

Two lawyers from Melbourne firm Marque Lawyers recently published a paper titled “This is why open justice is broken” and said:

Suppression orders are infringing too far on open justice. New research from Victoria highlights some pretty scary trends. Suppression orders are often too broad, lack appropriate end points, are unclear in their terms, beyond the scope of the court’s powers, and made without sufficient explanation of their necessity. (Click here to read more)

The judges need investigating for illegally issuing suppression orders.

Background (Click here to read the previous article setting out much of the background)

I have been getting bounced around the NSW Supreme Court since April 2014 with various defamation proceedings by Kerry Stokes. He has also instituted contempt proceedings against me twice for breaching dodgy suppression orders. The first time in 2014 I was found guilty and fined $2000 but is was so corrupt and a clear conspiracy to have me falsely charged that the NSW Justice Department said they would not enforce the fine when I complained.

The second time was this year via the defamation case known as Jane Doe 1 and Ors v Shane Dowling which is being paid for by Seven West Media and controlled by Kerry Stokes. I was found guilty in March of breaching another dodgy suppression order and are waiting for a sentencing hearing. Before the sentencing hearing goes ahead we are waiting for a judgment by Justice Lucy McCallum on whether the suppression order should have been issued in the first place as I have challenged it. A decision by Justice McCallum could have an impact on any sentence. The reality is it is a huge scam.

Current contempt case – (Click here to read the vague summons with the statement of charges) (Click here to read the suppression orders)

They tried to have the contempt matter dealt with without even telling me which is unbelievably corrupt.

The court registrar took the initial step in instituting contempt proceedings against me in February but I had not heard anything about it since except for a short administrative email on Monday the 27/3/17 giving me a document from February. The was no mention that they had instituted the contempt proceeding.

I only found out because I checked the court listing for the next three weeks on the NSW Courts website and seen a listing titled “Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Shane Dowling 2017/94322” which was listed before the Duty judge on Tuesday the 4th April and I assumed they instituted the contempt matter but was not sure as they had not contacted me to tell me anything. So, I emailed the judged the night before and complained that I had not been given any notice and did not know what it was about as I have not been served any paperwork.

On Tuesday, it was then set down for a directions hearing on Thursday the 56th of April. I was served the summons by email and then served by a process-server on Wednesday the 5th of April which is the day after it was originally meant to be heard.

Why didn’t they notify me earlier? Because they wanted a default judgment in their favour? How corrupt is the Crown Solicitor Lea Armstrong.

Lea Armstrong – Crown Solicitor

Lea Armstrong in the NSW Crown Solicitor which put simply is a government law firm with over 350 staff which does legal work for other government departments. She is personally running the matter against me and was in court on Thursday instructing the barrister. Her name appears on the court documents.

Corrupt Crown Solicitor – Lea Armstrong

I wonder why someone who heads up a legal firm of 350 people is personally dealing with my matter? And why has she acted so corruptly?

Justice Christine Adamson

Write on cue the judge hearing the directions hearing on Thursday, Justice Christine Adamson, gave the prosecution barrister everything she wanted and gave me nothing.

Justice Christine Adamson (Far left – sitting) – 2003 – When she was a barrister.

In any case where the conduct of judicial officers is going to be decided there should be an interstate judicial officer brought in to hear the matter so there is no perceived bias. The prosecuting barrister even said that but argued against an interstate judge. I asked for an interstate judge to hear the case but Justice Adamson refused which makes the whole hearing a scandal. There will be a judge hearing a matter that involves the conduct of his or her own mates from the NSW Supreme Court.

Justice Adamson also put a suppression order on their evidence filed. What have they got to hide? I asked for any possible suppression orders to be argued for or against early next week but Justice Adamson refused. She also forced me to agree to a hearing date when I had only received all the paperwork and evidence while we were in court.

They’re certainly gunning for me for either a big fine or jail it seems. Will I become a political prisoner in Australia so they can try to conceal judicial corruption? They are not after me for anything I have done. It is what I have said they don’t like and the fact that I won’t shut up even with their dodgy suppression orders. The battle above is very much about Free speech and political speech in Australia.

The contempt matter is set down for hearing on the 4th May 2017 in the NSW Supreme Court.

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.

Follow Kangaroo Court of Australia via email for free

And be notified immediately when there is a new article published. Enter your email address below and click on the follow button. You will be sent an email to confirm you want to follow this website.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

26 replies »

  1. The greater the threat The Kangaroo Court of Australia becomes to this remnant of our penal past the greater will be its reaction. You must be causing them some pain. They hate it when a large number of members of the public take an interest particularly when they come and sit in the court! The integrity of our legal system is fundamental to the strength and well being of the nation and the corruption of itself by its members hurts every Australian family and each of us has a fiduciary duty to eliminate that disease including our parliament which is why KKA`S information is political in nature and to suppress that message is a suppression of free speech and is contrary to the Australian Constitution.

  2. What hope does the little person have these days? Seems lies, deceit and corruption is in our society on every level.

  3. It appears the whole system of government in New South Wales, the Premier State, is as rotten as the state of Denmark circa Hamlet, perhaps the Commonwealth needs to take a trick out of the local government book and put in an administrator until all is sorted out.

    • They cannot be listening to the Federal Government who say they are trying to enshrine the concept of free speech and are the same political colour.

  4. Most people now accept that the legal system in Australia is corrupt and decisions are made in favour of money and elite alliances. Australian law is heading for anarchy and it is only people such as yourself who are in a position to resist business as usual in the legal system. I wish you success in your fight. I wish there were more legally trained people with a backbone in this country but when even our top government officials (as ex-barristers) flaunt Australian laws, the precedent makes it seem acceptable for entrenched corrupt behaviour.

  5. One has to cognisant of the genesis for the Master and Servant Act to understand that laws are generally made by the elite for the protection of the bourgeoisie. It could be alleged that judges come from a similar group in society, very few solicitors or QCS are either benevolent or prepared to question their colleagues, as the need their support to receive their ticket to the ultimate gravy train, the bench. So why are we surprised that Shane will be denied natural justice as they attempt to ensure the status quo remains intact for the bourgeoisie to prosper. Shane also needs the Juliaun Burnside to represent him as it’s not in the interests of either major political party to involve themselves given the number of politicians with a law background.

  6. I think it`s obvious the LNP with its coterie of lawyers is due to be kicked out at the next election.Now if we can only persuade Labor to show the same guts as Whitlam when his government broke the legal hold on divorce by creating the Family Law Court. Even if it has gone downhill with the re-introduction of lawyers contrary to the original intent. The Divorce Law Reform Association, formed of average Australians sick of the legal corruption they had faced, framed a new concept and the Labor Party made it into law. Time for the rise of citizens with a new association, a new vision.

  7. The Federal Government, The State Governments and Territories, The Supreme Court, The Federal Court, are private corporations each with an Australian Business Number.
    As with Stokes & Co, and their private corporations also, it is blatantly obvious that a positive outcome is difficult to achieve when battling with those corporations as they are making their own rules, and enforcing them which is contradictory to The Australian Constitution..
    The thick, black line between public servants, ie; politicians, judiciary et al and the citizens of Australia is increasing in width each day.

  8. The Australian Family Court has become a major child abuser. Its secrecy rules mean that one faces contempt of court charges for reporting the truth. There is collusion to pervert the course of justice and there is no jury to provide balance. Lawyers don’t warn clients that the Court will not serve the children’s best interests or keep them safe. It is an intentionally slow and expensive process run by an elite of sorts. But it is immoral (a best).

  9. All of these institutions from federal government to the courts to local government have created systems not to aid the peoples interests but to protect the ongoing pigs in the swill mentality and who can blame them as there are many more queuing up to join and protect as it has become such a lucrative and elite swill trough.

    • Jeremy you are in my opinion absolutely correct. Free speech and equity in the legal system is a goal that will need a high profile test case to overcome the current injustices. The war of law against Shane and Amber Harrison exemplifies how the wealth is used to to suppress equity. It matter not whether you are have a DUI case or a whistleblower or articulating the injustices of the system. I hold hope that Albo ousts Shorten, as you only have to look at Shorten’s deals for his members whose fees contributed to his salary. Who were the benefactors of his deals. He just happens to have a B.Arts & B.Law, so you have to ask the question, whose side will he take.

      The question is how can we as a community cause a revolution to change the power imbalance. I introduce all my friends and relatives to KCA and 7vAmber as food for thought. Shane and Amber should be promoted as role models not vilified.

      • Does NOBODY know ANYTHING about TRIAL BY JURY? “The question is how can we as a community cause a revolution to change the power imbalance.”……?????? Obviously, NOT! Juries are the law. The word, “jury” is from the Latin meaning “right, law, oath”. Juries ARE the law. Juries NULLIFY bad laws. The Jury Box is the “3rd box in defence of liberty”. Trial by Jury IS Democracy.

  10. Whatever the given reasons for the establishment of a judiciary, the real reason is to protect the interests of the political Establishment. The dispensation of justice is fairly straightforward when Establishment interests are not involved. One may occasionally obtain favourable results by greasing a judicial palm. This is corruption.

    However, the suppression of someone like Shane, who is making himself obnoxious to established power, is merely the judiciary doing its real job. It is very difficult to effectively combat this. It is only by giving wide publicity to particularly egregious examples of the judiciary’s true nature that useful reform may sometimes be achieved.

  11. Trial by jury? Where the lawyers get to pick by challenge who sits on the panel? Wonder why they always avoid the intelligent in the pool and go with the easily swayed?

  12. In simple terms, by which lawful method can the the citizens of Australia use to force the closure of the disclosed private corporations, of which the corrupt members of those corporations are creating non-constitutional Australian laws, which in total contradict The Australian Constitution, and are seriously affecting in a negative manner the freedom, freedom of speech and, the personal and private lives of every honest, law-abiding Australian citizen.

  13. I am amazed that the legal profession as whole are not up in arms with the state of affairs in the legal system, that they are not surely shows they are happy with the status quo and are benefiting from it……

    As so many of our politicians are of the same ilk how can there be any remedy, other than smashing the political system, and starting again.

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
    (Edmund Burke)

    And there has been a whole lot of nothing been going on for a very long time, the remedy, smash the political system, at 83 I am cynical enough to know that it not going to happen, Australians swim in indifference and apathy…..The beer’s cold, the sun shines on the beach, the footie and cricket amuse.

    Ask not for whom the bell tolls…

  14. Sorry to hear what they are doing to you. Albury Local Court acting in the same ways that you describe. Hearings without informing the respondent, or the changing of decisions by the Registrar working with the Magistrate after hearing, refusing to consider defence evidence, refusing to grant fair hearings, and suppression of the information by way of dodgy gag orders.

    Complaining about what is going on, only gets you put up on more false charges, and the Magistrate becomes closer to be able to jail you. The public servants above and behind the Magistrates and Registrars, are even more corrupt, and able to do their dirty work away from the eye of the public.

    What a joke, for this to be happening in Australia. With the blessing of both political parties.

  15. Try to film or tape a court proceeding and see how far you get. You have to rely on the court recorder getting it right or hoping the record gets to you intact. After that, it`s your word of what happened against theirs.

  16. Ross. Precisely. The judge is able to edit transcripts to remove his/her embarrrassing comments. We need a change of legal system from the current adversarial form to the inquisitorial (or truth-seeking) form. It works in parts of Europe. Can someone reading this set the process in motion? Nick Xenophon might be receptive. Helen T

Leave a Reply