The High Court of Australia has refused my special leave to appeal application for them to hear my appeal for contempt of court for calling Justice Clifton Hoeben a paedophile and Registrar Christopher Bradford a suspected paedophile and known bribe-taker. While it is disappointing it is not a total loss as it takes us inside the High Court of Australia, and we can start writing first-hand about corruption by the High Court judges with the first two being Justice Patrick Anthony Keane and Justice James Joshua Edelman.
The full judgment by Justice Keane and Justice Edelman is below with the bottom line being “this application for special leave to appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal”. What stands out about the full judgment is that it is not any longer then the line I just quoted which does nothing more than scandalise the High Court of Australia.
Written judgments are meant to keep the judges accountable. For example, a long-detailed judgment addressing all the issues shows that a judge has at least tried to do their job. A judgment that has no reasons and is only one line and that addresses no issues shows that the judges have not justified anything at all let alone their decision to refuse my special leave to appeal application. Keane and Edelman should be sacked immediately. If ever there was a need to give fully detailed reasons it is when there are serious allegations of judicial corruption and blatant perceived bias in the lower courts judgment.
What makes it worse is that at the time I was charged and convicted of contempt of court in 2017 Chief Justice Tom Bathurst had ordered senior court staff to stitch me up for jail time in September 2016 for an email I had sent to all the Supreme Court judges in accusing 15 judges, 2 registrars and 1 magistrate of being known paedophiles, suspected paedophiles and raising issues of judicial bribery. I was ultimately charged by the police in June 2017 but the charge was withdrawn because it was a malicious charge. Under those circumstances it was even more reason why the High Court of Australia should have allowed special leave to appeal for the full court to hear the appeal.
The judge who convicted me of contempt for what I said in court on the 3rd of February 2017, Justice Helen Wilson, said in court that it was not what I said but where I said it and how I said that resulted in me being found guilty of contempt. She then gave an example and said that if I called her a bribe-taker outside of court she would not care less. I then asked her what If I called her a paedophile outside of court and she said it is not up to her to give me legal advice even though she had just given me legal advice on calling her a bribe-taker.
I had an almost identical conversation with Justice Clifton Hoeben on the 4th of May 2019 where he told me not to call him or any other judges of the court a paedophile. I asked him about calling him a bribe-taker and he said I couldn’t call him that either. I then told Justice Hoeben about Justice Helen Wilson saying that I could call her a bribe taker outside of court and I asked Justice Hoeben if I could call him a paedophile outside court and he said it was not for him to give me legal advice.
The reason I raise the issue of Justice Wilson and Justice Hoeben in effect saying I can say what I want, outside court in relation to judicial corruption, is that they had no choice to say that given the police charge was dropped for the email I sent to the Supreme Court judges in September 2016. That email is still on my website as part of an article I wrote in September 2016 titled “Paedophile priest gets 3 months jail for raping 3 boys by NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Hoeben” and is also on the banner in the video below which I filmed at the High Court of Australia in Canberra on Friday (10-5-19). The reason the police charge was dropped is because the email I sent was clearly me raising issues of government corruption which is protected by the constitution as political communication and that is outlined in the 1997 High Court precedent Lange v ABC.
What Justice Wilson did was rewrite the law when she found me guilty of contempt because a Victorian Court of Appeal judgment, Herald & Weekly Times Ltd & Bolt v Popovic  VSCA 161, in effect says if you raise allegations of criminal conduct against judges “whether in or out of court” that would be covered by 1997 High Court precedent Lange v ABC. This is another reason why the High Court needed to hear the matter because now we have 2 state Supreme Court judgments which contradict each other in regards to the Australian public’s rights to political communication.
This leaves the allegations I have made in the email unchallenged and also scandalises the High Court of Australia as they are the ones who have ultimate responsibility to protect the reputation of the courts.
The below video is me, Shane Dowling, outside the High Court of Australia (10-5-19). The video is an unfinished project as it was raining the day of filming and I thought I would just leave it as is but it was worth the trip and I will go again soon as we are going to start focusing heavily on the High Court. (A thank you to Ian in Canberra who helped with filming on the day)
Below is the full High Court judgment. To call it the “full judgment” is really a bad joke given the judgment is only one line with no reasons given.
Dowling v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales  HCASL 96 (17 April 2019)
Last Updated: 17 April 2019
PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
- The appeal foreshadowed by this application for special leave to appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application should be dismissed.
- Pursuant to r 41.08.01 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
17 April 2019
The High Court’s scandalous decision also allows me to make allegations of corrupt and criminal conduct against the High Court as well as Justice Keane and Justice Edelman because their lack of reasons to support their judgment is powerful circumstantial evidence of corruption.
The High Court judges were also going to protect their corrupt mates but before we start making allegations, we needed documented evidence and now we have that.
The question I would like to know is how often the High Court judges sweep judicial corruption matters under the carpet. A lot of the judges in the lower courts wouldn’t hand down the corrupt judgments they do if they didn’t know they were protected by the High Court judges.
New federal laws need to be introduced sacking judges who refuse to give detailed written reasons for their judgments.
I’ll be making other applications in the High Court of Australia with the first being in a matter of days so we will be going back inside the High Court and possibly expose more corruption.
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.
Maybe we should all call crime stoppers en mass and report these corrupt Pedos. That might get the cops moving. I’m sure there are some good cops out there!
Good luck…someone must be straight in that court, surely and you will be proven right!
The judgement is void through section 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 Commonwealth. All courts judgements have to contain substance, without substance the judgement is a clear indication of people not doing their job as prescribed.
I lost faith in the High Court after the Liam Magill fiasco.
Appeal to the Privy Council – e.g. Senator Rod Culleton
The HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA has an Australian Business Number 69 445 188 986.
Why would that Australian High Court need an ABN which are obtained for legally for operating a business.
Definition of “should be” certainly isn’t shall or must
what is the time limit for giving written reasons?
They have already published there reasons as per the above article and there are none. That is a major point I make in the article.
team may be just wanting to know of any time limit — should there in fact exist any such absolutely necessary thing in law — before which jurists should have already given written reasons. I doubt that there is a hard and fast time limit, because like most other things that these jury-rigged jurists have for far too long been permitted to manipulate in our courts on but a mere whim, whilst being handsomely paid from the public purse, the longer that they can delay anything, then they can continue pilfering their pay with an inordinate amount of pleasure to boot whilst laughing all the way to the bank (‘en banc’) and denying myriad those of us who pay them to do the right thing after a reasonable amount of time by delivering to us that which is rightfully ours…justice.
There is only a very slim chance to get a special leave .
Courts operate as a business – a very lucrative business. Eg,. Family court is a 5 billion dollar business. It’s a different court to any other court in Australia.
It operates illegally – it doesnt adhere to the Evidence Act, employs dodgy experts that place children in risk of harm (by writing reports that cost $10,000-$30,000 a pop, without even seeing children), the judges get spoonfed by well paid powerful barristers, the powerful law firm have judges in their pockets.
Most judges protect pedophiles, abusers and perpetrators.
The proceedings are purposefully protracted for up to 12 years, making millions and leaving misery, poverty, illness – complete trail of destruction.
General public has no idea what is going on in the most dysfunctional court of Australia because judges protect themselves with their own gagging rule – sec121 of the FLA.
Don’t ever be duped by jurists’ plethora of “obiter dicta” which — when they don’t know the law — they’ll often trot out surreptitiously coupled with a stern look on their faces as being their findings supported in law (ludicrous, of course) when they want to pull the wool over the eyes of laypersons. If you can see any jurist’s lips moving when you hear their “obiter dicta” issuing forth then it’s a fair bet that that is exactly what it is…”obiter dicta”.
No Juries. No Justice.