A couple of weeks ago serial rapist Graham Kay was put back behind bars for attacking a 16-year-old girl working at Woolworths. What was not reported is that last year Justice Ian Harrison issued a temporary suppression order at Graham Kay’s request banning the media from reporting on Graham Kay further. Only one question needs to be asked and that is: What the hell was a judge doing protecting a serial rapist with a suppression order and potentially putting more women at risk?

In the last week I have also come across a judgment by Justice Lucy McCallum where a suppression order was issued by her in September 2017 against various parties including an overseas newspaper and Google relating to allegations a man sexually abused young men in his care.

Since Justice McCallum issued the suppression orders the man has been charged by authorities for sexual offences against at least one man in his care. So how did Justice McCallum get it so wrong? Looking at her judgments is no real guide because I know Justice McCallum well and she is a compulsive liar, so a lot of the facts could have easily been left out of her judgments.

The suppression orders issued by Justice Harrison and Justice McCallum are not one-offs but part of a widespread epidemic of protecting paedophiles in the NSW judiciary and suppression orders being for sale which I have written about numerous times. It’s only in January 2018 that I wrote an article titled “Australia’s paedophile epidemic being covered-up by judges” and it continues.

I named both Justice Ian Harrison and Justice Lucy McCallum as suspected paedophiles in my email to the court in September 2016 and subsequent article in September 2016 titled “Paedophile priest gets 3 months jail for raping 3 boys by NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Hoeben” and neither of them have ever denied the allegations. Nor did Harrison or McCallum file complaints with the police when they had the chance in Chief Justice Tom Bathurst’s scandalous and malicious failed attempt to have me convicted of a crime for sending the email in 2016.

Justice Ian Harrison

The temporary suppression order was overturned by Justice Harrison after intervention by News Corp but I suspect if News Corp hadn’t intervened then the temporary suppression order would have been made permanent because that is how dodgy Justice Harrison operates.

The SMH reported:

Sadistic North Shore rapist Graham James Kay placed under supervision order

A serial rapist who preyed on women in Sydney’s northern suburbs will be subject to close supervision, including electronic monitoring, after a court found he continues to be a serious risk of further violent sexual offences.

Graham James Kay sexually assaulted eight women, aged from 16 to 39, between December 1995 and December 1996 after grabbing them from behind and holding a knife to their necks in “premeditated and planned” attacks.

Kay was only stopped after a 1997 police operation dubbed Strike Force Allier caught him driving around looking for women and following them in Macquarie Park, Glebe and Epping. (Click here to read more)

North shore rapist Graham James Kay back behind bars

A serial rapist who terrorised women on the north shore in the 1990s has been charged over an alleged attack on a teenage girl and is back behind bars after breaching tough supervision orders, including failing to disclose he was in an “intimate relationship”.

Graham James Kay, 66, was responsible for a wave of sexual assaults on women aged from 16 to 39 between December 1995 and December 1996 in Balgowlah, Artarmon, Epping, Eastwood and Wollstonecraft.

He was released on parole in February 2015 after serving about 18 years of a 20-year maximum jail sentence. But in 2017 the state applied for, and was granted, extended supervision orders on the basis he remains a high-risk sex offender.

In sentencing Mr Kaye over the 1990s assaults, the NSW Supreme Court found most, if not all, of the attacks were “not chance happenings occurring on the spur of the moment … but premeditated and planned events” in which he held a knife to his victims’ throats. (Click here to read more)

Justice Ian Harrison’s suppression orders protecting serial rapist Graham Kay only lifted after intervention by News Corp

7. The defendant said that he was threatened regularly when he was in custody. He set forth in some graphic detail in his affidavit particulars of several violent incidents and assaults to which he was subjected at the hands of fellow inmates. The threats and assaults upon him continued until he was eventually released from custody. He said that even at the end of his sentence these assaults would occur at least every couple of months.
8. The defendant also referred to threats that had been received by his friends and family members. These included threats to his former wife, his mother, his sisters, one of his sons and his former girlfriend and her family. He recalled being told by family members about receiving threats over the phone at all times of the day and night. Sometimes they would receive face to face threats and harassment. His mother would also be subjected to derogatory comments directed at her. The defendant said, however, that these problems for his family and friends died down over time.
9. The defendant said that since he has been released he has not received any threats. It is his belief that that is because no one has known about his past. He said that until the final hearing before me on 27 February 2017, he felt safer. He believed that he had been able slowly to reintegrate into the community in a very positive way.

Defendant’s submissions

15. The defendant relied upon s 8(1)(a) and (c) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act in support of his concern that the interim order preventing publication of his name or his photograph should be extended indefinitely. His significant contention was that he feared for his safety and that such an order was necessary to protect him from physical harm. He relied upon the fears that he expressed in his evidence, which he submitted were supported by the material on the Internet and social media to which he referred. In addition, his family and friends were also concerned about their safety, and an order was also said to be appropriate in those circumstances.

Nationwide News Pty Ltd’s submissions

18. The newspaper contended that there were two reasons why the order should be revoked. First, it was not necessary. This was said to be because the defendant had failed to establish by proper evidence that his safety was in fact imperilled, as opposed to establishing merely that he was concerned about it. The newspaper submitted that for s 8(1)(c) to be attracted, the defendant would have to establish at least the probability of harm or that harm was imminent: mere belief or suspicion would not be enough.
19. Secondly, it would be futile to make any order limiting or restricting publication of the defendant’s name or picture because there was already so much information about him that was publicly available and readily accessible. It was implicit in this submission that even aside from the wealth of material of the type to which Ms Mullins’ affidavit drew attention, there were three judgments on the Supreme Court Caselaw website that went into detail about the defendant and his criminal activities that named him. No attempt had been made by the defendant at any time to have those judgments removed or to have them modified in such a way that they could not be connected to him. (Click here to read the judgment)

Graham James Kay is a serial rapist and he was not entitled to any suppression order and the fact that Justice Ian Harrison issued one on even an interim basis says Harrison is not a fit and proper person to be a judge.

Justice Lucy McCallum

Justice Lucy McCallum – NSW Supreme Court – Defamation list judge

In September 2017 Justice McCallum heard an application to have a newspaper article taken down from the internet and to have the Google searches blocked regarding allegations a man had sexually abused young men in his care.

At paragraphs 1 and 2 she said in her judgement:

1 – HER HONOUR: Gary Miller (a pseudonym) moves the Court for urgent injunctive relief to restrain the publication of a defamatory article on the website of an overseas newspaper. He further seeks to restrain the publication of a search result in respect of that article on the search engine Google.

2 – The application is supported by two affidavits sworn by Mr Miller’s solicitor which annex a copy of the matter complained of. It is highly defamatory.

And at paragraphs 14 and 15 said:

14 – In all the circumstances, notwithstanding the difficulties ordinarily facing a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief ex parte on the strength of a cause of action for defamation, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the relief sought in the present case.

15 – Specifically, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case for a cause of action in defamation. (Click here to read the full judgment)

Only a few months later the man was charged by authorities for doing exactly what the newspaper’s article said and Justice McCallum had no choice but to withdraw the suppression orders and she handed down a judgement and said:

The imputations as recorded in my judgment in short involved allegations of sexual impropriety on the plaintiff’s part with young men in his care.

Since that application was determined, events have changed dramatically. The plaintiff has been arrested and charged with offences of sexual impropriety involving one man in his care; the solicitor acting for him has gone off the record; the plaintiff has not appeared today; and, following the plaintiff’s arrest and the laying of charges against him, those allegations have been widely reported by other media organisations. In those circumstances, the entire premise for the orders I made on 19 September 2017 has disappeared and it is no longer appropriate for these proceedings to be the subject of orders of that kind, nor, indeed, for the injunctions made on an interlocutory basis to continue. For those reasons, I revoke orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 made on 19 September 2017. (Click here to read more)

Justice Lucy McCallum lifted the suppression orders but left the alleged sex offender protected in her judgments with the pseudonym of Gary Miller even after lifting the suppression orders. Why? There is no justification and Justice McCallum needs to answer why she is still protecting the alleged sex offender.

Justice Ian Harrison and Justice Lucy McCallum have long histories of this sort of thing and I have written many articles about both their handiwork and they should be either sacked or stood down pending a full investigation.

Declaration: Justice Ian Harrison sentenced me to 4 months jail last year for naming 2 Channel Seven stars in the Tim Worner / Amber Harrison sex, fraud and drug scandal. The defamation case against me by the 2 Seven stars continues and both the stars are so far refusing to answer interrogatories and to comply with discovery by handing over requested documents.

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.