Since I was released from jail (21/12/18) I have tried to file 2 appeals and also have 2 defamation matters set down for directions hearings, as per the below emails, but it is all too hard for the NSW Supreme Court. Yet in the same time I was able to file and serve an application for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court of Australia without too much trouble.
The reason the Supreme Court is doing this is because Kerry Stokes and Capilano Honey are in big trouble with their defamation matters given the Court of Appeal decision in my favour last October (Click here to read more) and the 2 matters I want to appeal won’t hold-up under scrutiny. The way they have denied me the appeals is by denying me the fee-waiver I am entitled to, which the High Court granted me, and the way they deny me having the defamation matters set down is by ducking and weaving as the below emails show.
This isn’t the first time this conduct has happened and in January 2018 I published an article titled “Chief Justice Bathurst again uses Supreme Court for personal grievance and vendetta against journalist Shane Dowling“. (Click here to read more)
It is blatantly obvious that Chief Justice Tom Bathurst has continued to instruct staff to undermine me and my right to natural justice and a fair go. As regular readers know in September 2016 Chief Justice Bathurst instructed the court’s CEO and Principle Registrar Chris D’Aeth to have me jailed for an email that I sent to the court regarding paedophile judges and judicial bribery. The NSW police did pursue the matter with a bogus charge which was withdrawn before hearing because it would have scandalised the CDPP, the police and court.
Attempt to have the Capilano Honey and Jane Doe (A Channel 7 actress and well-known Channel 7 on-air presenter) defamation matters set down for directions
There is no reason these matters have not been set down for a directions hearing since my release as the matters have been before the court for over 2 years. The applicants have an obligation to prosecute the matters in a timely manner so I should not have had to write to the court but I did as per the below email to Justice McCallum.
From: SHANE DOWLING
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2019 8:59 PM
To: Nicole Sinclair
Subject: Shane Dowling
Dear Justice McCallum
I am writing to request that the Capilano Honey v Shane Dowling (2016/299522) and the Jane Doe v Shane Dowling (2016/383575) matters be set down ASAP for urgent directions given the Court of Appeal judgment in Capilano Honey v Shane Dowling.
Justice McCallum responded:
From: Nicole Sinclair <email@example.com>
Sent: 06 February 2019 08:29
To: SHANE DOWLING
Subject: RE: Shane Dowling
Dear Mr Dowling
Justice McCallum is no longer the Defamation list judge. Please direct any enquiries to the chambers of the Chief Judge at Common Law, Justice Hoeben.
Nicole Sinclair | Associate to Justice Lucy McCallum | Chambers 12.29
Court of Appeal | Supreme Court of NSW | GPO Box 3 Sydney NSW 2001 | DX 829 Sydney
Tel 9230 8095 | Fax 9230 8339 | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
As it turns out Justice McCallum has been promoted to the Court of Appeal. I then sent an email to Justice Hoeben’s associate as per below:
From: SHANE DOWLING
Sent: 07 February 2019 15:27
Cc: Nicole Sinclair <email@example.com>
Subject: Shane Dowling defamation matters
Dear Justice Hoeben
I sent an email to Justice Lucy McCallum in relation to 2 defamation matters and said to her “I am writing to request that the Capilano Honey v Shane Dowling (2016/299522) and the Jane Doe v Shane Dowling (2016/383575) matters be set down ASAP for urgent directions given the Court of Appeal judgment in Capilano Honey v Shane Dowling.” As per the below email (6/2/19) Justice McCallum’s Associate responded and said that Justice McCallum no longer looks after the defamation list and that I needed to contact you.
I found this odd as I did 4 months jail which expired on the 21/12/18 for contempt of court for calling you (Justice Hoeben) a paedophile and registrar Christopher Bradford a suspected paedophile and known bribe taker in court on the 3/2/17 and for breaching 2 suppression orders that the court issued to try to cover-up the reasons of why I was in jail.
Justice McCallum and her associate Nicole Sinclair are well aware of this and they even directed the jail to have me on video-link on Friday the 7th of September 2018 for the Capilano Honey matter. Why they would tell me to contact you is disturbing as they could have dealt with my request easily. Be that as it may I hereby request that you have the 2 previously mentioned matters set down for directions.
Obviously the matters should not be dealt with by you and should have an interstate judge deal with the matters. I have also filed an application for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court of Australia for the contempt matter where your conduct and credibility will be questioned. Just for the record I deny calling you a paedophile in court for which I was found in contempt but admit calling you a paedophile in an email I sent to the court and an article I published in September 2016 which are allegations you have never refuted even though you have had the opportunity to do so on many occasions.
At this point I have not had a response from Justice Hoeben so I will have to follow-up but I shouldn’t have to.
Trying to file 2 appeals. Hitting the brick wall
I filed 2 appeals on the 3rd of January 2019 with fee-waiver applications. One was for the Munsie v Dowling defamation matter (Kerry Stokes, Ryan Stokes and their lawyer Justine Munsie) and the other was for Seven v Dowling who are trying to get a copy of my computer and have me jailed again.
There is a lot more to the below email but is shows what blatant lies they tell. They claim an email to me accidentally ended up in the draft box and wasn’t sent. What lies. It’s the same sort of garbage story I ways get.
I sent the below email:
From: SHANE DOWLING
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:51 AM
To: SCO – Enquiries (Shared Mailbox)
Subject: FW: Shane Dowling Appeals
I filed 2 appeals on the 3rd of January 2019 and I have not heard anything back as far as hearing dates are concerned.
One matter was Munsie v Dowling and the appeal is from the final judgment and the other matter was Seven Network (Operations) Limited & Anor v Dowling 2017/45726 and the appeal is from an interlocutory judgment.
I contacted Registrar Riznyczok as per the below email ands he did not know anything g about the appeals.
Can you please advise when these matters are listed?
The court responded but it took them a month which was no accident. Other times I have waited for about 15 minutes while I am at the registry and been notified. (Click here to read more) So why did it take over a month this time and why did I have to contact them again before they notified me?
From: SCO – Enquiries (Shared Mailbox) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 07 February 2019 18:19
To: Shane Dowling
Subject: FW: Shane Dowling Appeals
Dear Mr Dowling
I am writing regarding your applications of 3 January to waive or postpone the filing fees payable on two Notices of Appeal.
Firstly, I apologise for the Registry’s delay in contacting you regarding these applications. The Registrar determined the applications on 21 January 2019, but due to an administrative error on my part, I mistakenly saved my email to you in draft instead of hitting Send. I only became aware of your error when you sent the follow up email below indicating you were still waiting to receive advice of the decisions.
The Registrar has considered your applications to postpone the fees in accordance with the Attorney General’s Guidelines. In respect of the Notice of Appeal against Justice Rees’s decision of 7 December 2018, the Registrar has refused to postpone the filing fee for the following reasons:
- The Registrar notes that you need leave to appeal and refers you to section 101(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1970;
- Putting aside the need for leave, the Registrar notes that you are seeking to challenge an interlocutory decision. Fees are not usually waived or postponed for interlocutory steps unless they are an essential step in the proceeding.
With respect to the Notice of Appeal against Justice Rothman’s decision, the Registrar has refused to postpone fees for the following reasons:
- The Registrar notes that you need leave to appeal. The Registrar will re-consider your application for waiver/postponement if a Summons for Leave to Appeal is provided, accompanied by a White Folder containing a summary of argument.
Under Section 14 of the Guidelines, you are entitled to apply for a review of this decision. You may apply for a review by reply email including the words “Fee review application” in the subject line. You may provide additional information that you feel supports your application for fee postponement, even if this was not included in your original application.
Erika Stockdale | Business Support Coordinator | Supreme Court of New South Wales
Law Courts Building, Queens Square, 184 Phillip Street, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 3 Sydney NSW 2001 | Email: email@example.com
The positive of all this is that it shows a constant and blatant attempt by the Supreme Court of NSW to undermine me. What stands out is that the High Court of Australia granted me a fee waiver automatically as I am entitled to one but the Supreme Court has done everything they can to make me pay knowing full well I can’t afford to. They are desperate people trying desperate tactics to try to conceal their crimes but judgment day is coming.
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.