Kerry Stokes and his son Ryan won their defamation case against Shane Dowling (me) on Monday but it was one of those legal cases where the so-called “win” was actually a massive loss. Justice Stephen Rothman has made them look like Australia’s biggest fools because key allegations they wanted hidden from the public are now enshrined in the public domain forever via the legal judgment.

The matter is known as Munsie v Dowling as they hid behind their lawyer Justine Munsie who also sued for defamation. Click here for the full judgment which handed down on Monday 21st of May 2018: Munsie v Dowling (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 709

Without a doubt Kerry Stokes would have dropped the boot into his lawyers because the $millions of dollars they have spent over the past 4 years and 2 months it took to get the judgment have been largely a waste.

Background

Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie started suing me in 2014 after I published an article on him and Channel Seven paying Schapelle Corby for an interview. They got a super-injunction issued so I could not even tell anyone there was a court case. I had the super-injunction overturned a couple of days later. (Click here to read Justice Harrison’s judgment)

I continued to write articles about the court case and Stokes continued to go to court and get non-publication orders etc. After 4 years and 2 months of Kerry Stokes playing time delaying tactics Justice Stephen Rothman handed down his judgement which is scandalous.

Corrupt judgement

The judgment is so blatantly corrupt and any lawyer in the country reading it will cringe with embarrassment as it totally re-writes defamation law in favour of the rich where you don’t need to make out your case or give evidence. If you have enough money you can just have your lawyer give evidence and write affidavits on your behalf.

At the end of paragraph 9 Justice Rothman says “At final hearing, the plaintiffs are required to make out their case and the need for permanent interlocutory relief.” The problem is they never did make out their case and that is why in the judgment you will not see quoted anywhere the evidence given by Kerry Stokes, Ryan Stokes and Justine Munsie and that is because they refused to give any evidence. Munsie did write an affidavit initially but they refused to use that at the final hearing because she wrote it on behalf of Kerry Stokes. They also refused to hop in the witness stand and give evidence.

Not allowed Interrogatories or Discovery

After many requests none of the judges that the matter went before would ever allow me interrogatories or discovery which are both tools that are used by litigants to make out their defence. The reason why I was never allowed interrogatories or discovery was obvious and that is because the applicants never had a case and if I was allowed interrogatories or discovery their whole case would have fallen over.

If you don’t know interrogatories are: “Written questions submitted to a party from his or her adversary to ascertain answers that are prepared in writing and signed under oath and that have relevance to the issues in a lawsuit.“

The judgment

Below are some of the articles that Justice Rothman documents in his judgment and what Kerry Stokes and Ryan Stokes would be extremely embarrassed about as they thought they had concealed the information forever.

Below Justice Rothman talks in terms of the plaintiffs. The parties are:

Justine Munsie (First Plaintiff)
Kerry Stokes (Second Plaintiff)
Ryan Stokes (Third Plaintiff)
Shane Dowling (Defendant)

And their barrister who also gets a mention in the judgment is Sandy Dawson as per the 5 June 2014 clip (the Dawson Film Clip).

Schapelle Corby matter

13. In or about February 2014, the defendant published an article titled “Kerry Stokes, Channel Seven and Lawyer Justine Munsie Caught Lying in the Schapelle Corby matter” (“the Corby Article”). The imputations in the publication are plain and obvious. The article imputes that the first plaintiff lied to the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) about Channel Seven’s ability to comply with an AFP search warrant; the first plaintiff, a solicitor, attempted to assist her client, Channel Seven, to avoid revealing documents caught by an AFP search warrant, which she knew would prove that Channel Seven had concluded an illegal deal to pay Schapelle Corby for an interview and did so dishonestly; and the first plaintiff, a solicitor, has repeatedly committed perjury.

14. The same article also conveyed imputations concerning the second plaintiff that he: used threats and intimidation against the AFP to avoid having to reveal documents caught by an AFP search warrant, which he knew would prove that Channel Seven had concluded an illegal deal to pay Schapelle Corby for an interview; lied to the AFP about Channel Seven’s ability to comply with an AFP search warrant; made dishonest threats against the AFP concerning their raid on Channel Seven; had repeatedly committed perjury; and is, or was, delusional.

15. There is no doubt that the imputations aforesaid arise from the article, the terms of which I do not repeat. There is also no doubt that those imputations are defamatory.

16. At or around the same time, the defendant published a link to the foregoing article on his Twitter page (“the Corby tweet”) which imputes, separately from the article itself, that the first and second plaintiffs have each been caught lying and are liars in relation to issues concerning Schapelle Corby. By its link, the Twitter publication also, by reference, publishes the imputations contained in the article and already mentioned.

What is strange and futile is that Justice Rothman has put a non-publication order on the article I wrote about Kerry Stokes and the Schapelle Corby matter in 2014 but the article is published as part of Justice Ian Harrison’s 2014 judgement. (Click here to read Justice Harrison’s judgment)

It is worth noting that in the last 24 hours Kerry Stokes Channel 7 has agreed to pay corrupt federal politician Barnaby Joyce $150,000 for an interview. (Click here to read more)

Government corruption – A lot of the articles are clearly political communication and are protected by the 1997 High Court judgment Lange v ABC which justice Rothman totally ignores in his judgment even though I raised it about 50 times during the hearing and another 20 times in written submissions.

“illegal private communications with a judge of the Court”

18. On about 31 May 2014, the defendant published another article (“the Private Communications Article”) relating to the second defendant’s allegedly illegal private communications with a judge of the Court (obviously, not the Court as presently constituted). It should be added that the judge may or may not be aware of the publication and is not a party to the litigation.

19. The ordinary and natural meaning of the article imputes to the second defendant that he had private and corrupt communications with a judge of the Court in order to obtain judicial favour not otherwise permitted and has committed contempt of court and/or perverted the course of justice.

20. The next matter upon which the plaintiffs rely is a sign, published on or about 3 June 2014 (“the Bribery Sign”), the natural and ordinary meaning of which imputes that the second plaintiff has been discovered or caught out bribing two judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; perverting the course of justice; and having private communications with two judges of the Supreme Court. Plainly, the sign is defamatory and the imputations arise from the sign.

Justice Rothman writes about the alleged sexual relationship between Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie

Capilano Honey lawyers Justine Munsie and barrister Kieran Smark SC. Ms Munsie is Kerry Stokes’ and Channel 7’s personal lawyer. Photo was taken while they represented 7 against suppression orders sought by drug mule Cassie Sainsbury 21/5/17

.

“abused the legal system by obtaining a suppression order to stop the defendant exercising his right of free speech”

27. The Suppression Order Article, in its natural and ordinary meaning, carried imputations that the first plaintiff: dishonestly abused the legal system by obtaining a suppression order to stop the defendant exercising his right of free speech; fabricated evidence to assist the second plaintiff in obtaining a suppression order against the defendant; conspired with the second plaintiff and a judge of the Supreme Court, the conspiracy being one to commit a criminal offence; and misconducted herself as a lawyer such as to warrant her being struck off the Solicitors’ Roll.

28. Further, the Suppression Order Article, in its natural and ordinary meaning, carried imputations in relation to the second plaintiff (over and above those already mentioned in relation to the first plaintiff) that he: dishonestly abused the legal system by obtaining a suppression order stopping the defendant exercising his right to free speech; conspired with the first plaintiff and a judge of the Supreme Court to commit a criminal offence; has repeatedly committed perjury; and is corrupt in that he has bribed a judge of the Supreme Court to obtain a suppression order concerning the defendant.

“Kerry Stokes’ ‘Power Couple’”

29. On or about 13 February 2015, the defendant published a copy of an email with the subject heading “Kerry Stokes’ ‘Power Couple’” (“the Relationship Email”) on the website about which complaint is made. It makes a number of salacious allegations concerning both the first and second plaintiff.

30. In its ordinary and natural meaning, the Relationship Email imputes: that the first plaintiff has been involved in, or is involved in, an adulterous sexual relationship with the second plaintiff; that the first plaintiff has engaged in unprofessional criminal conduct by having a sexual relationship with her client; that the second plaintiff has had, or is in, an adulterous sexual relationship with the first plaintiff; that the second plaintiff has engaged in criminal conduct by having a sexual relationship with his lawyer.

31. On the same date, 13 February 2015, the defendant published an article (“the Relationship Article”) under the heading “Known Adulterer and Womaniser, 7’s Kerry Stokes Denies Sexual Relationship with Lawyer…”. The article, as a whole and in its natural and ordinary meaning carries a number of imputations which are defamatory of the first and second defendant. It imputes to the first defendant that: she was involved, or is involved, in an adulterous sexual relationship with the second plaintiff; by engaging in that adulterous sexual relationship, she has engaged in conduct which is similar to the alleged fraud and corruption engaged in by Julia Gillard when she was in a sexual relationship with a Bruce Wilson; she has engaged in misconduct as a lawyer by having an adulterous sexual relationship with a client, the second plaintiff; the misconduct warrants investigation by the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner; she has dishonestly misused the Court’s process to cover up the truth about her conduct and Kerry Stokes’ conduct which led the AFP to raid Channel Seven; and she has dishonestly sought to conceal her adulterous sexual relationship with the second plaintiff.

Kerry Stokes and the NLA Lose Freedom of Information Legal Battle Against KCA Blogger

37. On 29 March 2015, a further publication occurred in which the defendant published an article entitled “Kerry Stokes and the NLA Lose Freedom of Information Legal Battle Against KCA Blogger” (“the FOI Article”). Again in its ordinary natural meaning the FOI Article carried imputations of the second plaintiff.

38. In this article, imputations also were conveyed of the third plaintiff which are damaging to his reputation. The imputations against the second plaintiff in this article were that he had engaged in corrupt conduct by using his son’s position as Chairman of the National Library of Australia to archive the defendant’s website and, in relation to the third plaintiff, that he engaged in corrupt conduct as the aforesaid Chairman, by archiving the website to provide his father a favour, to which he was otherwise not entitled.

39. On 10 May 2015, the defendant published a further article concerning the second and third plaintiff’s entitled “Channel Seven’s Ryan Stokes Thrown under a Bus for Corruption as Chair of the National Library” (“the Corruption Article”. The content of the article carries imputations against the second and third plaintiffs.

40. In relation to the second plaintiff, the article repeats the imputation of corrupt and criminal conduct by taking advantage of the third plaintiff’s position in the National Library of Australia to remove the defendant’s website; the second plaintiff is one of Australia’s biggest tax cheats; and the second plaintiff paid a bribe to his son in his son’s capacity as Chairman of the National Library of Australia in order to obtain a decision in the second plaintiff’s favour concerning the removal of the aforesaid website.

Kerry Stokes, Ryan Stokes and Justine Munsie have never publicly denied the allegations I have made against them nor have they signed affidavits denying them.

The judgment is a total embarrassment to the whole legal fraternity

The whole of the Australian legal fraternity should be ashamed of the judgment and the fact that it took 4 years and 2 months to deliver is a disgrace. Stokes has been awarded costs but the whole judgement is that corrupted Stokes wouldn’t want to go near it ever again so i doubt he will try to enforce costs. I have emailed his lawyers about the issue but haven’t had a response.

At some stage the legal fraternity are going to have to look at the judgment and overturn it and maybe by government legislation so it never happens again.

Impact on me and this website

This website is about exposing judicial corruption and from that viewpoint I suppose we should thank Stokes as he has taken us into the eye of the storm, so we can see first-hand how corrupt the NSW Supreme Court really is and can report on it. For me personally it has been very costly, but I’ve learnt plenty.

Admin: I have started doing short videos which I have put a few on the video page (Click here) and other social media and will do many more for this website moving forward and would like to raise $1700 to get a new iPhone to film with which will improve the quality greatly. My current model is an iPhone 5s and is about 4 1/2 years old. The new iPhone X costs $1579 and then add a leather case and a selfie stick. Instead of setting up a GoFundMe page I will try raising the funds here and I will use the first comment section below to keep a tally of how much I raise. So please read below and donate and help this website grow.

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.