Channel 7

Justice Lucy McCallum is again taking bribes from Kerry Stokes and Channel Seven

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
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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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:
  3. 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 [1973] 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 [1973] VR 122; Haldane and Transexecutive Airlines Pty Ltd v Chegwidden (1986) 41 SASR 546). See:


  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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:

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.

  1. How many times have you been instructed by Justine Munsie when you were a barrister?
  2. When was the first time you met with Justine Munsie?
  3. How many times have you met with or spoken to Justine Munsie?
  4. When was the last you spoke to or communicated with Justine Munsie?
  5. Do you regard Justine Munsie as a friend?
  6. 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?
  7. Why did you hear the matter given you had a personal interest in the matter?
  8. 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?
  9. Why did you hear the applicants notice of motion in my absence?
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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?

  1. 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?
  2. You organised for Justice Hall to hear the notice of motion. What did you say to him?
  3. And how did you convince Justice Hall hear the notice of motion and to override the judgement of Justice Harrison?
  4. Why did you not hear the notice of motion?
  5. What was the benefit to you of committing the crimes that you did as outlined above?
  6. 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.


Shane Dowling

Kangaroo Court of Australia

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.

Sent: 27 July 2017 22:03
To: ‘Nicole Sinclair’ <>
Cc: ‘Kieran Smark’ <>; ‘Richard Keegan’ <>; ‘Sandy Dawson <>
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.


Shane Dowling

Kangaroo Court of Australia

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)

Thank you for your support.

32 replies »

  1. UK Cases: Tobin V The Queen 1864, Mostyn v Fabrigas 1774 and Enever v The King 1906 High Court Case on The Monarch’s are not liable for officers exceeding their duty, The officers are liable including Governors, Governor Generals, Justices, Judges, Magistrates, Police and Sheriff Officers… James Aspinall Tobin, who has Survived Thomas Tobin v The Queen [1864] EngR 21; (1864) 16 CB NS 310; 143 E.R. 1148 (1 January 1864) Top of page 1156 by the court.

  2. The rot goes all the way to the top with cases like Liam Magill. Our courts and legal profession need taking to the cleaners, but who among the political parties has either the will, or the integrity to do it? Would a Royal Commission being staffed with lawyers and judges ever achieve anything? Maybe public airing is the only way to go until the Australian public get sick of the travesty of justice.

  3. Whatever happens, do not use that computer again until you have a trusted person check it out. All sorts of chicanery could have happened whilst the machine was out of your control. Personally I would ensure that the computer never connects to the Internet ever again.

    Have you had access to the Chain of Custody document to ascertain how your computer was or has been compromised?

    We all know you are funding this fight on a shoestring, I have a 3 year old laptop you are welcome to. Maybe someone out there has newer.

  4. Any Royal Commission whether on this subject or any other should be done the way it is in Holland, every bit of evidence aired on Live TV as it happens. I saw one years back on Police Corruption, nothing hidden from the Public with one Free to Air Channel turned over to the coverage from day one to the end. Absolutely stunning stuff.

  5. It makes one feel disillusioned with the whole system. politics as well as the justice system is corrupt from the bottom to the top, but don’t they scream when caught out and persecuted by their own. They abandon each other when it comes to the crunch. All I can say at this stage, is Good Luck Shane I will give what I can as I can, but if not for you and maybe one or two others out there non of this would ever come to light.

  6. I for one will never respect judges,they seem to protect the pedophiles and criminals but will come down hard on a normal citizen who gets caught up in something out his or hers control, like protecting themselves from the lawless scum these judges keep letting out on bail against police advice. Actually judges are only unsuccessful lawyers who take on the position because their previous law firm didn’t want them anymore. They should all be sacked and we could set up a people court with just a few legal people to advise only.

    • yes peter it is designer system.all kids who end up in jail are petty ppl with obvious hardships.why the true criminals are highrolling all the big events and parties in town and have any1 jailed who questions there ethics

  7. Albeit for me to comment SD, but everything written relating to the above situations should be encrypted, transferred to a CD/DVD, USB, SD card, or External Hard Drive and hidden in a place away from your residence, known only to you and information only given to someone trustworthy.
    Also, your computer should be locked with a secure password, let the bastards try and fail to outsmart clever ‘people’ with the available types of ‘locks-on-the-doors’.

  8. Your allegation that the computer was ‘snuck’ out of the court is most serious, unless leave was given by the court. Using the term ‘snucked’ is significant.

    No way that would be not condemed even in a Magistrate’s Court and could be the subject of a serious complaint.
    A subpoened document/item is one given to the custody of the Court and only subject for inspection by leave of the Court.
    Perhaps check the transcript to determine if leave was given. If it was not and there is proof that the computer was ‘snucked’ out, then serious repercussions may follow.

    • The judge raised the fact that the computer left the court to be copied but their was no court order issued. So it was definitely “snuck out”. Seven’s lawyers were meant to wait for the court order and they know it. They were rushing because they knew I was appealing the decision to the duty judge. So they “snuck” it out without a court order issued.

      • If so, an affidavit with full details to that affect could be sent to the NSW Law Society for its investigation.
        There is a distinction; to enabling the Court to arrange the Court’s administration to ‘photo ‘copy’, say a subpoenaed document, and legal representatives doing their own copy (or inspect) without leave, particularly if there is an objection being raised.
        Happens as a matter of course. Say, with medical records or a claim of privilege being considered. If privilege is claimed, for example, the subpoenaed document is with the court and its contents only provided, if at all, to a party after there is a hearing on the claim for privilege or otherwise, is determined.
        As I have stated, it is a serious matter.
        Let us say, a insurance company subpoenas a plaintiff’s medical record from a treating medical practitioner, or from an accountant etc. If privilege or an objection on some other ground is put forward then that objection must be considered by the Court and a order made one way or the other before access is either granted or denied.
        Pretty basic!
        Seek proper professional advice on the matter, this observation is not so.

      • A further thought.
        As another example, lets surmise that you had a personal diary with notes, contacts etc. on your life interests.
        Say it was grabbed by the police on a search warrant and they retained it.
        Then the police are subpoenaed and per the police department’s duties it is produced to the custody of the Court which is the requirement.
        Let us presume the diary contains personal and confidential contacts and information.
        Suppose you object to parts of the diary being irrelevant to the case in hand.
        Whilst you are objecting and before any order is made either allowng all or only relevant material to be provided, your opponent gets access to a court document and photocopies the lot.
        Need I say more?
        Just imagine what a normal journalist would think if that was done to them?
        This matter has potential serious repercusons for all the mass media journalists.
        Time to get some serious professional advice I suggest. Think!!!

      • For an example, go back to the murder of Donald McKay from Griffith.
        His recording as an informant to the police on the drug business in Griffith was exposed from a police note/diary that ended up in court on a drug matter that was provided to an accused defence team.
        Thus he was exposed and there was a reason to kill him.
        So how many journos have in their hot little diaries, similar information that could compromise law enforcement?
        Sorry, but I am crankey, if you are correct on your account.

  9. Ned, more importantly, whoever provided the note/diary document to the defence team helped compromise McKay’s life, and no doubt with full intentions of doing so.

    Griffiths was a an awfully corrupt area in those day’s and still is.
    I was a Soldier back then and had first hand experience in Griffith’s sleazy society make up,and it went right to the top of Government, things don’t change, corruption is, has been, and always will be cemented in political parties, Governments and their appointed judicial puppets

    • Read Prof Giddons book: ‘The man who knew
      Too much’.
      Hard to get, may have to rely on search summaries.
      It went way above dumb coppers and naive courts.
      Subpoenaed documents are not a licence to copy without
      due course.

      • Apologies.
        Dr. John Jiggens in lieu of Giddons.
        Lea Rhiannon was present at NSW Parliament House at the book launching.
        So they know, but what are they doing about it?

  10. When are we going to get Just Law, and transparency. It is clear that NSW especially has a real problem, highlighted recently by the Amber Harrison case.

  11. Maybe we can all start emailing Ms McCallum requesting when she intends to publish her decision/s.

    Possibly we could send emails every Monday and Wednesday. Might be a way of encouraging her to comply to her employment terms and conditions. Surely, by refusing to publish decision, she is breaching something???

    • That just might work if there are a few of us. Also requesting a copy from the courts. We would need quite a few to join in, a good 20 or 30 maybe.

      • Ted, absolutely agree.. It is probably better to place pressure on the court rather than the decision maker.

        If SD supports, once say (25) people have acknowledged their interest directly with SD, maybe SD could circulate the relevant information, case details, contact details and pick the day we all should send an email.

        I suggest that that email be standard, and simply state that we seek confirmation as to when the decision will be published.

        In our email to the court, we simply Cc: SD, to confirm our support.

        Anyway, I am more than willing to support the cause !!

  12. TV is cutthroat, doesn’t suprise me! Didn’t Packer Snr used to get called the ‘snake’. These people are ruthless! If a judge was a gambling alcoholic with six kids maybe I’d understand bribes! But we’re not in the seventies or eighties.
    You seriously think these judges must get strongarmed, how else can they conceivably sit in a courtroom taking bribes from Australia’s richest men?
    Also, why are these judges coincidentally put on their mates cases, or does said briber make it business to be mates with every judge.
    No wonder Murdoch became an American, and travels with bodyguards, this sounds so dangerous. I really am loathing corruption, and how dare these people enter your home and take your property! And then shuffle their feet, on taxpayer’s money! Bottom feeders, the lot of them!

    • I am with Joe, I am with SD, I am all for down right bleedin’ honesty from politicians and members of the judiciary in Australia.
      We are one of only a minority of vestiges left on this planet with the freedom to walk the streets, the ability to speak freely with honest information and facts in public places, in written comments and reports in the daily news which still spreads the relevant information among the population in order that they be advised and kept up to date with information which they may not, or otherwise have the time or ability to research or read for themselves.
      Long Live Freedom For Honest Men And Women and Freedom Of Speech For All.

      “We may disagree, or agree with what an honest person has to say in public or in any social arena , but we as honest Australians must defend to the death the right of any honest person to speak freely in our Australian democratic country for which thousands of honourable, brave men and women fought in wars, and many gave their young lives to keep and preserve, our Freedom/and Of Speech for eternity .”

      As is publicly known, Australia’s Federal Government, Australia’s State Governments, City Councils and all facets of the Australian Judiciary are Private Corporations, each with an Australian Business Number, an ABN in simple terms.
      This comment is being a ‘correction’, as this is indicated in the case with Mr S.D.

      Private Corporations will have, and do have their own Rules and Regulations relating to Board Members, Managers and Employees.
      Private Corporations have Board Meetings of Members to make
      relative decisions affecting the Corporation or Corporations as a whole under Australia’s private businesses.

      These Corporations are a Business, they are not, nor do have the authority to make changes to The Constitution Of Australia.

      Therefore, the judges and every other person who is employed in a Corporation does not have the authority to pass a sentence, a punishment of any description of negativity of their self on an Australian citizen created by the ABN Corporation Owners and Managers.
      From the Magna Carta to the laid down and set in stone, The Constitution Of Australia is the document which controls, and must be abided by and sworn to be abided by every politician, every member of the judiciary, every citizen, migrant and every single person who swears to uphold The Laws, The Teachings, The Rules, The Regulations, The Integration to become…an Australian.

      Mr. S.D.
      You can not be punished for anything by a CEO, a Director, MD or any other lakky of a private corporation as you are not employed in that corporation.

      Every castle has faulty cracks in the walls.

      • Very interesting, as this case will effect all Australians in the long run which ever way it goes we could look seriously at throwing a hand grenade in the mix given the ABN angle. Companies, Corporations etc shall not engage in misleading and/or deceptive conduct, nor unconscionable conduct, in trade or commerce the courts earn revenue for governments, they are in business earning money. All his comes under under the ACCC’S umbrella and both these elements of the TPA were designed to supposedly protect the WEAKER PARTY. A combined 30 odd complaints as potential victims of what is now corporate stand over tactics against the weaker party, that is SD and all Australians, should be presented to the ACCC, probably be a bit more livelier than a grenade, more like an RPG

  13. 30 odd years of working with in the Prison Service here in NSW has taught me that just about any thing is possible when it comes to the justice system. One could never be totally certain where the “buck” was going to stop.

Leave a Reply