NSW Supreme Court judge Lucy McCallum is clearly back on the payroll of Kerry Stokes, Seven West Media and Addisons Lawyers. Justice McCallum is close personal friends with Addisons Lawyers partner Justine Munsie who represents Kerry Stokes, Seven West Media and Channel 7.
The prima facie case that Justice McCallum has been taking bribes off Kerry Stokes and Seven West Media has been building over the last couple of years and reached a point where it is irrefutable. The latest installment by Justice McCallum is that she is doing what she can to help Kerry Stokes and Seven get my computer or a copy of it and then refusing to publish written reasons for her judgment and court orders. This is the second time in my matters that Justice McCallum has refused to publish written reasons in an attempt to cover her corrupt conduct and in effect allowing Seven a backdoor appeal.
I’m not the only one now reporting on the corruption and personal interest of judges in the NSW Supreme Court with many journalists publishing stories and tweeting about the close relationship Justice John Sackar has with Seven and their top lawyer Bruce McWilliam.
From the Twitter account of the legal website Justinian:
And from Stephen Mayne:
I wrote last week: “It would be interesting for someone to count how many suppression orders Kerry Stokes, Seven and his other companies have taken out against people over the years because I have no doubt there would be dozens.” As it turns out Stokes is also now suing the website New Matilda on top of his frivolous and vexatious cases against Simon Mulvany and myself. The list of SLAPP lawsuits by Stokes and Seven keeps on growing.
Justice McCallum secret hearing with Stokes’ lawyers in 2014 and McCallum never published reasons (Click here for a full copy of the transcript)
Justice McCallum has form on the board for having secret hearings with Kerry Stokes’ and Seven lawyers. They were caught out in 2014 when I had to buy the transcript to find out what happened as no one would tell me. Below is the email I sent Justice McCallum and she refused to respond.
From: Shane Dowling
Sent: 29 May 2014 14:01
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Justice Lucy McCallum – Criminal Investigation – Supreme Court of NSW
Dear Justice McCallum
I hereby request that you answer the below questions in relation to the private communication that you had with Kerry Stokes via his lawyer and fellow applicant Justine Munsie and their barrister Sandy Dawson on 6th of May 2014. You had the communication in the Supreme Court of NSW without my knowledge or consent in the matter Justine Munsie v Shane Dowling.
- As you are fully aware the private communication that you had with Mr Dawson in court on that day is a breach of the 2014 Barristers Rules 53, 54 and 55.
- These rules are not new. These rules were rules 57, 58, and 59, respectively, in the Barristers Rule 2007. They reflect what Gibbs CJ described in Re JRL; Ex parte CJL as the “fundamental principle that a judge must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other.” See: https://portal.barweb.com.au/uploads/Communications%20with%20the%20Court.pdf
- It is also a breach of section 34 of the Crimes Act 1914 “34 – Judge or magistrate acting oppressively or when interested” given that you admitted that you knew Justine Munsie and then proceeded with your private communication and handed down a judgement in her favour.
The relevant precedents are many such as:
A judge must not receive private communications from a party or the representatives of a party without the knowledge and consent of the other party (R v Magistrates’ Court at Lilydale; Ex parte Ciccone  VR 122; Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342).
A judge must also maintain the appearance of impartiality and must not be in a situation where he or she could be suspected of having sought or received private communications from a party or a witness (R v Magistrates’ Court at Lilydale; Ex parte Ciccone  VR 122; Haldane and Transexecutive Airlines Pty Ltd v Chegwidden (1986) 41 SASR 546). See: http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VCPM/index.htm#27538.htm
- An existing or previous association between the judge and a party to the proceedings may give rise to an apprehension of bias (Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 78).
- If the judge believes that a relationship might give rise to an apprehension of bias, he or she should disclose that relationship in open court and invite the parties to make submissions on whether the judge is disqualified due to that relationship (S & M Motor Repairs v Caltex Oil (1988) 12 NSWLR 358).
- It is not necessary for the judge to disclose a personal relationship if he or she is satisfied, without any need for submissions from the parties, that it is inappropriate for him or her to sit on the case. It is only necessary to disclose the relationship if the judge is not prepared to excuse him or herself from the case on his or her own motion. See: http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VCPM/index.htm#27536.htm
Given that you had private communication with Kerry Stokes, Justine Munsie and barrister Sandy Dawson I am sure you will be happy to respond to my questions.
- How many times have you been instructed by Justine Munsie when you were a barrister?
- When was the first time you met with Justine Munsie?
- How many times have you met with or spoken to Justine Munsie?
- When was the last you spoke to or communicated with Justine Munsie?
- Do you regard Justine Munsie as a friend?
- Given that you knew it was clearly a breach of the barristers rules and many common law precedents to have a hearing with barrister Sandy Dawson, why did you do it? What was the benefit to you?
- Why did you hear the matter given you had a personal interest in the matter?
- Why did you hand a down a favourable judgement for the applicants during the course of the private communication when it was clearly a breach of the law?
- Why did you hear the applicants notice of motion in my absence?
- At the beginning of the transcript (See attachment) it says “(Her Honour declared that she had been briefed as a barrister in the past by Ms Munsie. No objection to her Honour dealing with the matter. Her Honour requested that the defendant be advised.)” Clearly there was never going to be an objection given I was not there, so why did you not stop the proceedings then?
- You said “Her Honour requested that the defendant be advised”. They did not advise me and in fact would not even tell me your name when I requested (many times) the judges name who heard the matter. What action will you be taking against the applicants for breaching your instructions? If you plan on taking no action then why not?
- You say on page 2 of the transcript: HER HONOUR: It’s not a question of convenience, I don’t know that it’s proper for me to hear it, is it? We could wait and see if there is an objection. DAWSON: Perhaps if the matter were to come back for directions tomorrow and Mr Dowling could indicate.
Why did you ask Sandy Dawson the question: “I don’t know that it’s proper for me to hear it, is it?”. Why did you think it was not proper for you to hear it? Why did you wait until that point to say that? Is that an admission Sandy Dawson was the one running the court that day which he clearly was? Why did you not wait as Sandy Dawson suggested?
- You say on page 3 of the transcript: “HER HONOUR: At the moment I am not persuaded that there is such urgency to warrant the abridgement of time between now and Thursday.” So why did you abridge it then?
- You organised for Justice Hall to hear the notice of motion. What did you say to him?
- And how did you convince Justice Hall hear the notice of motion and to override the judgement of Justice Harrison?
- Why did you not hear the notice of motion?
- What was the benefit to you of committing the crimes that you did as outlined above?
- What did Kerry Stokes, Justine Munsie and Sandy Dawson promise you in return for the judicial favours?
Please respond in the next 24 hours and answer all questions. No need to send the response to Stokes, Munsie or Dawson as that would be alerting them to the investigation currently afoot.
Justice McCallum has always refused to publish reasons for issuing the orders that Kerry Stokes and Seven wanted in relation to the above email.
Kerry Stokes and Seven West Media trying to steal my computer and data
On the June 24th the police raided my unit taking my computers in search of an article and email that I published in September 2016. It was a time waster as I had tendered the article and email in court on May 4th and they are still on my website which is what ignited a retaliatory complaint to the police which resulted in the police raid. (Click here to read more)
The police were meant to give the final computer back to me about 4 weeks ago but Seven West Media filed and served a subpoena on the NSW Police. On Monday the 17th of July I had to go to court to argue to get my computer back from the court and ended up in court all day. The registrar sent the computer off to get copied after a request from Seven’s barrister Sandy Dawson. I challenged the ruling before the duty judge who was Justice McCallum.
Justice McCallum ultimately ordered that my computer be handed back to me but it turned out Seven had snuck the computer out of the court and had it copied while we were arguing that it shouldn’t be. Justice McCallum said she would publish her reasons the next day but she has failed to do so. And the same issues have been set down for hearing again and Seven still want my computer. If Seven aren’t happy with McCallum’s orders they should appeal, not be given a second chance with another judge.
There are some strange happenings with Seven trying to get my computer and data and it’s still to play out in full but McCallum has a lot to answer for. Yes she did give the computer back at first as it was scandalous that Seven was able to subpoena it in the first place. But then McCallum had second thoughts which was probably after a phone call from her friend and Seven’s lawyer Justine Munsie.
Justice McCallum refusing to publish written reasons for a second time
What is meant to keep judges accountable and honest is their obligation to write and publish written reason for their judgements and court orders. If they are allowed to stop publishing reasons they are totally unaccountable. This is the second time McCallum has been caught refusing to publish reasons and she needs to be sacked. How many other times has she failed to publish reasons?
Justice McCallum knows what she is doing and doesn’t care
I sent an email to Justice McCallum Thursday night and she did not respond. Why? She doesn’t care. Like most criminals she thinks she is above the law or too smart to be caught. The problem for the likes of Justice McCallum is that the public are becoming more and more aware of judicial corruption and starting to voice their concerns as the above Tweets show.
From: SHANE DOWLING
Sent: 27 July 2017 22:03
To: ‘Nicole Sinclair’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: ‘Kieran Smark’ <email@example.com>; ‘Richard Keegan’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Sandy Dawson <email@example.com>
Subject: FW: Seven v Publisher x
Dear Justice Lucy McCallum
I have been waiting 2 weeks for a copy of your judgment you said you would email me last week and you have also ignored my request for a copy as per below even though you are aware that it is an important judgment for upcoming proceedings.
If I do not get a copy of your judgment on Friday (28/7/2017) I will assume one will not be forthcoming as per your failure to publish written reasons for your ex parte hearing in 2014 with Kerry Stokes’ and Seven West Media’s barrister Sandy Dawson and your lack of a judgment in Jane Doe 1 & Ors v Shane Dowling which you have been deliberately sitting on for 5 months. If that is the case then I will make a complaint to ICAC summarily.
Justice McCallum refusing to hand down judgment in relation to the dodgy suppression order in the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 defamation matter
In December 2016, under the instructions of Chairman Kerry Stokes, Seven West Media’s lawyers rushed into the NSW Supreme Court and took out a dodgy suppression order so the media couldn’t name Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 as alleged lovers of Seven CEO Tim Worner.
In March 2017 there was a hearing before Justice McCallum to have the suppression orders lifted. It should have taken only five minutes for Justice McCallum to rule there was no justification for the suppression order as key criteria of there needing to be exceptional circumstances to justify the suppression was not met. In fact Seven lawyers didn’t even try to argue there was an exceptional circumstance to justify the suppression order.
At the time of writing of this article which is 5 months after McCallum heard the hearing she has still not handed down a judgement. Why? Because she has no choice but to lift the suppression order and her friends at Seven don’t want that so she just keeps on delaying the judgement.
The above is just the tip of the iceberg but already we have McCallum refusing to publish written reasons twice, delaying a judgment by 5 months and trying to help Seven steal my computer. I’m also investigating other corruption involving Justice Lucy McCallum. The longer these people are investigated the stronger the case against them becomes.
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)