High Court of Australia

High Court of Australia’s Justice Virginia Bell legalizes hearsay evidence which benefits Kerry Stokes and Ryan Stokes

Last Thursday (23/5/19) the High Court of Australia’s Justice Virginia Bell summarily dismissed my application to have the Munsie v Dowling matter removed to the High Court. Justice Bell’s decision has in effect legalized hearsay evidence given that the applicants in the Munsie v Dowling matter, Kerry Stokes, Ryan Stokes and their lawyer Justine Munsie, only ever had their lawyer Richard Keegan file hearsay evidence.

At any stage of a proceeding, as long as it is active and hasn’t been finalized, you can apply to have a court case removed to the High Court with the most common reason being that the case raises issues regarding the Australian Constitution and its interpretation. This is the second time in a couple of weeks that the High Court has summarily dismissed an application by me with no reason given by the judges as 2 judges also summarily dismissed my Special Leave to Appeal application on the 17th of April 2019. (Click here to read more)

As regular readers know I have 4 SLAPP lawsuits that have been instituted against me by Kerry Stokes that are at various stages and have all been dragged out for years. The real battle regarding the 4 SLAPP lawsuits is quickly moving to the High Court of Australia and this will become obvious over the next few weeks.

Below is the letter summarily dismissing my application although today (29/5/19) I received another letter from the High Court of Australia, in response to my emailed complaint, saying I can make another application to the High Court of Australia which could possibly overturn the below summary decision. Why didn’t they tell me that last week when I was at the High Court of Australia registry or say so in the below letter they emailed me a few hours later that same day?

 

Giving me the run around all day every day is standard for the NSW Supreme Court and it looks like I’ll be getting the same treatment from the High Court of Australia with the positive being that I’ll document it all on this website so the corruption will be exposed to the wider public.

Background – Munsie v Dowling – Commenced April 2014 – After 3 years a hearing was held in April 2017 and then 14 months later a judgment was handed down in May 2018 by Justice Stephen Rothman. It was only finalized on Monday the 27th of May 2019 when final orders were issued which wasted another 13 months. This matter started out as a defamation claim against me by Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie regarding allegations of Seven paying Schapelle Corby for an interview etc before Justice Ian Harrison. The initial hearing was an ex parte hearing (They were the only ones there because they never told me about it) where the applicants managed to get wide-ranging suppression orders, non-publication orders and a super-injunction.

The affidavit used to start the matter was written by Justine Munsie who said in the affidavit she had permission from Kerry Stokes to write the affidavit for him which means not only was Justine Munsie an applicant in the matter but it looks like she was also being paid by Kerry Stokes to represent him in the same matter.

The suppression orders, non-publication orders and super-injunction only lasted a few days because they were so dodgy and Justice Ian Harrison lifted the orders. A few days later the applicants instituted what can only be described as a back-door appeal and had Justice Peter Hall reinstate the non-publication orders. The applicants also charged me with contempt for breaching the super-injunction (even though it was lifted after a few days and was never justified) and I was fined $2000 which I never had to pay because the NSW Justice Department wouldn’t enforce the fine because they also knew it was dodgy. In 2015 Kerry’s son Ryan Stokes was added as an applicant.

The applicants provided no evidence to support their claim at the final hearing in April 2017 as their barrister Sandy Dawson argued they did not have to provide evidence as they had my defence dismissed and because they had interim orders for the suppression orders. But they only provided hearsay evidence from their lawyers Richard Keegan to support the interim orders (which is allowed under section 75 of the 1995 evidence act) which means they now have final orders based in hearsay evidence even though hearsay evidence is not allowed at a final hearing as per the 1995 evidence act.

Since this matter started in April 2014 I have lost count of the number of articles and social media posts the court have ordered me to take down based solely on Richard Keegan’s hearsay evidence. It is a classic SLAPP Lawsuit.

This matter was before Justice Clifton Hoeben on the 3rd of May 2019 and he dismissed my Notice of Motion for criminal contempt against the applicants as he said I need leave of the court which he refused. Justice Hoeben did this on his own accord as the applicants had a barrister in court who had sent me draft directions for the matter, so the applicants were prepared for the criminal contempt charge to go to hearing which makes Justice Hoeben’s intervention even more disturbing.

This scandalizes the court given I did 4 months jail last year because I was found guilty for calling Justice Clifton Hoeben a paedophile, calling Registrar Christopher Bradford a suspected paedophile and known bribe-taker and breaching 2 suppression orders because I wrote about the contempt charge. Justice Tom Bathurst has had Justice Clifton Hoeben dealing with 3 associated matters where I am a party and Hoeben has refused to stand down from those matters where there is clear perceived bias and real bias.

Swearing in ceremony of Chief Justice of the High Court Susan Kiefel. Chief Justice Susan Kiefel (C) was sworn in by fellow female justice Virginia Bell (L). The judge on the right is Justice Stephen Gageler.

Hearsay evidence thrown out by Supreme Court in Capilano Honey matter in relation to Richard Keegan’s affidavits

Hearsay evidence from lawyer Richard Keegan was thrown out in the Capilano Honey v Shane Dowling matter by Justice Lucy McCallum and then by 3 Court of Appeal judges as having no credibility to justify interim suppression and non-publication orders. Yet somehow Justice Stephen Rothman has agreed with barrister Sandy Dawson that the hearsay evidence by Richard Keegan is good enough for a final judgment even though hearsay evidence is inadmissible at a final hearing.

Justice Lucy McCallum’s judgment in Capilano Honey v Shane Dowling (Click here to read)

NSW Supreme Court – Court of Appeal’s judgment in Capilano Honey v Shane Dowling (Click here to read)

Back to the High Court of Australia

One of the key reasons I have applied to have the matters removed to the High Court is because it has been made very clear to me that I will not be getting natural justice in the NSW Supreme Court. This is because of a documented vendetta against me by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst for an email I sent to the court in September 2016 where he instructed staff to make a malicious complaint to the police which resulted in a charge that was later withdrawn by the CDPP. (Click here to read more)

Justice Bell’s decision is another judgment which is slowly but surely showing more direct evidence of judicial corruption in the High Court of Australia which I’ll collate on this website.

This isn’t the end of the story because the High Court of Australia is still to decide if the Seven v Dowling matter will be removed to the High Court ( Click here to read the Application for Removal and supporting affidavit) and I have raised the Munsie v Dowling hearsay scandal as part of my submissions to the High Court who will hopefully have more to say on the issue at a later date.

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.

7 replies »

  1. They didn’t tell you what they quite easily could and should have, about your being able to make another application when you were still at the registry, or at least later on in the same day’s email, given none of it is rocket science, because they seemingly don’t want to start undoing any of the puerilely-persistent and wayward work done thus far in delaying justice so that its devious delaying has every single bit of arrant assistance they can muster in denying it to you. They are acting in a manner not unlike the person who is said to “protesteth too much”, except they are decidedly doing as much of it as they can “on the quiet” when they start to lose interest of just simply delaying what they can, which must be grating on their nerves knowing that if they haven’t won, when the smoke they’re putting up finally clears, it’ll all end in tears for them when they’re roundly ridiculed in media.

  2. Something is not right in Kansas Dorothy nor the judicial system in Australia, states the wizard of OZ!! I smell the most odorsome pheromones of ferals at the bench with a smell of a burning Constitution in chambers!!
    My, such personal retribution, game playing, ignorance and incompetence at the tax payers expense…
    Dare I say, time for 3year tenures with a performance evaluation & review to determine a further one year tenure… Resulting reduced timelines towards completions & reducing congestion & Constitutional accuracy & adherence, but too much logic for the governments of the day..!

  3. Be grateful (sort of), that you are informed and allowed to be heard in Court. My case was heard five times in the Qld Supreme Court. Twice I wasn`t notified of the hearings, once when my barrister who had two days to be prepared, got up and said he knew nothing of my case, Once I was blackmailed by the opposition barrister who threatened to drag the case out until he broke me financially, and, then, when I tried to represent myself as a means of getting heard, the judge refused to hear me. Complete and utter waste of time and money, except it made me a lifelong seeker after legal reform.

  4. Only in a dictatorship is voting in an election made compulsory.
    Why is it so that innocent people can be accused of a crime and judged by criminals in a dictatorship as in Australia.

    Download a copy of The Magna Carta, page 46 which continues to be upheld in The Australian Constitution (which is ignored by the UN New World order.

    Magna Carta in Australia 1803–2015.

  5. These Judges are becoming a Circus joke! Can’t even carry out the basic’s properly. They should be embarrassed at their pathetic behaviour – and making a mockery of all other judges – they are taking down the whole of the judiciary with them in the Public Opinion – it makes the Govt look like a joke too for tolerating them. We are sick of paying our taxes for Judges that don’t want to do their job properly. Govt needs to stop wasting our money and replace them with judges that want to get on with doing what they committed to do when they took the Oath to uphold Justice and operate with integrity and truth.

  6. There is clearly quite more than but a modicum of “Judicial Activism” at play here, which isn’t surprising. Chief Justice R. S. French in 10 November 2009, wrote:

    Judicial Activism – The Boundaries of the Judicial Role

    […] Where judges, in purporting to discharge their functions, exceed what the constitution provides, or what history has defined, or what contemporary society expects of them, then they are apt to be called ‘activists’ or ‘imperial’ and said to have gone beyond their proper limits and to have become a law unto themselves. […]

    Judges are also apt to be called many other things besides, if they are suspected in the slightest of being – or having done – anything else whatsoever to which a label – just like laws let loose upon the judiciary – can be stuck. There’s always a sticking point, and in sticking their neck out to deviously dabble in some ‘judicial activism’, which they do time and again, to ‘try it on’ (‘imperial’) in testing the waiving waters, judges – ‘neck or nothing’ – run the risk of their coming unstuck.

Leave a Reply to Jonde Cancel reply