In August 2017 I was found guilty of contempt of court for something I said in court on the 3rd of February 2017 in what the evidence now shows was always a back-up plan in case a malicious police charge against me failed. The police charge has failed as the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew the police charge on the 28th March 2018.
I’m scheduled to be sentenced next month for the contempt charge and for breaching the suppression orders put on the details of the contempt charge and Justice Helen Wilson has said words to the effect that there is a fair chance she will give me jail time.
What I said and against who was meant to have suppression orders on it and Monday last week (28-5-18) I tried to have the suppression orders lifted but the duty judge Justice Julia Lonergan refused. This has become scandalous as recently I found out that some of the details of my contempt charges that I thought were suppressed were actually published by Justice Robert Beech-Jones in February 2017. This included naming Registrar Christopher Bradford but for some reason the name of the judge is still suppressed.
Justice Julia Lonergan has also published enough details that people can guess what I said so that only leaves the name of the judge.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones published judgement. Extract below:
Jane Doe 1 v Dowling  NSWSC 57 (Click here to read the full judgment)
1. Pursuant to Part 55 r.11(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970, that the Prothonotary apply by motion, or commence proceedings, against the defendant for punishment of contempt by his conduct:
(i) in making allegations about Registrar Bradford and judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (‘the allegations’) in open court before Registrar Bradford on 3 February 2017;
(ii) in contravening order 1 of the orders made by his Honour Justice Beech-Jones on 3 February 2017 by disclosing the contents of Exhibit 1 to persons other than the parties without leave of the Court; and
(iii) in contravening order 2 of the orders made his Honour Justice Beech-Jones on 3 February 2017 by publishing:
(a) the content of the allegations;
(b) that Mr Bradford and judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were the subject of the allegations; and
(c) that the allegations were made.
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
- HIS HONOUR: Listed today before me is the return of two Notices of Motion seeking orders under Part 55 rule 11(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 that the Court, by order, direct the Prothonotary to apply by motion or commence proceedings against the defendant, Shane Dowling, for punishment for contempt.
- As I will explain, Mr Dowling has been placed on notice that these orders will be sought and has decided not to attend today. He has given reasons for his non‑attendance which I will describe.
- First, however, it is necessary to set out the background to the two motions. There is, in this Division, proceedings on foot between two plaintiffs, whose names have been suppressed, and Mr Dowling, being proceedings number 2016/383575. It is not necessary to describe the subject‑matter of those proceedings.
- Those proceedings were listed before a Registrar of this Court on Friday 3 February 2017 for the return of two Notices of Motion. One of the Notices of Motion sought to strike out Mr Dowling’s Defence. The other Notice of Motion sought to punish him for contempt. The transcript records that when the motions were called on before the Registrar at 9:30am, Mr Dowling made scurrilous and groundless allegations against judicial officers.
- The matter was then referred to me as Duty Judge at 10:00am. When the matter was called on before me at 10:00am, there was no reference made to Mr Dowling’s conduct before the Registrar. Orders were made which had the effect of standing over both Notices of Motion in the substantive proceedings to the Duty Judge’s list this Friday.
- Upon the transcript of the proceedings before the Registrar becoming available, the Prothonotary applied to me as Duty Judge at 3:00pm that day for a suppression order in respect of the statements made by Mr Dowling and for an order under Part 55 rule 11(1) which provides:
“Where it is alleged, or appears to the Court on its own view, that a person is guilty of contempt of the Court or of any other Court, the Court may, by order, direct the Registrar to apply by motion for, or to commence proceedings for punishment of the contempt.”
- As Mr Dowling did not attend at 3:00pm that afternoon, I considered it prudent to stand over that motion to today at 3:30pm to give him the opportunity to consider his position. A telephone message had been left with Mr Dowling that day advising that the matter was to be listed at 3:00pm although it is not clear whether he received the message prior to that application being made.
End of extract
Justice Julia Lonergan’s judgements – SWEARING IN CEREMONY OF
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JULIA LONERGAN – (Click here to read)
When Justice Lonergan handed down her judgement refusing to lift the suppression orders she deliberately ignored the 2006 High Court of Australia precedent ABC v O’Neill which I raised in support of having the suppression orders lifted. That related to the High Court refusing suppression orders for a person accused of murdering children. (Click here to read a summary of the ABC v O’Neill judgement) There is a very high cross-bar to get over to legally justify suppression orders but the NSW Supreme Court ignores it whenever they want.
Justice Lonergan handed down 2 judgements.
A main judgement: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Shane Dowling (4) (Click here to read)
And another judgement putting suppression orders on some of the evidence that was used by the prosecution last Monday which already had suppression orders on it anyhow. Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Shane Dowling (3) (Click here to read)
Justice Helen Wilson gets thrown under a bus
My hearing for the contempt charge and breaching the suppression orders on the contempt was on the 4th May last year before Justice Helen Wilson. On the 3rd of August 2017 I was found guilty of the contempt charge and breaching the suppression orders. Justice Wilson put a suppression order on her judgement and used the previous suppression orders of Justice Beech-Jones to justify putting a suppression order on her judgement.
The problem is that Justice Wilson does not name the judge or what I said in court on the 3/2/17 and she doesn’t even name Registrar Bradford so there is absolutely no justification for Justice Wilson suppressing her judgment which the court in effect re-enforced last Monday with the judgement of Justice Julia Lonergan.
They thought they had a another win last Monday by having the suppression orders kept going but they didn’t realize that at the same time they were outing Justice Wilson for putting a dodgy suppression order on her judgement.
The reason suppression orders are flying left, right and centre in my matters is that Chief Justice Tom Bathurst who is driving my prosecution doesn’t want the public knowing what they are trying to stitch me up for. But the clear and blatant abuse of suppression orders on what is really their own case has become embarrassing for the court and proves the corruption I have alleged for a long time.
It’s not always about winning. Sometimes it’s just about standing your ground and watching others self-explode which is what is happening here.
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.