The High Court of Australia, on Thursday the 10/10/19, dismissed my applications to have 3 of Kerry Stokes’ frivolous and vexatious SLAPP lawsuits against me transferred from the Supreme Court of NSW to the High Court. In doing so the High Court of Australia and its judges, under the leadership of Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, have exposed themselves for their involvement in judicial corruption as the below judgment shows as it has no details and it does nothing more than scandalize the court.
From a legal viewpoint, the High Court’s decision was a loss for me but from a journalistic viewpoint it was a big win as this website has a focus on judicial corruption and now I have further direct evidence of how corruption works in the High Court. They dismiss cases without ever publishing any details of what the case was about or give any relevant details at all, except the party names, which is a clear hatchet job and a breach of common law which says judges have to give detailed reasons for their judgments.
Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and the other 6 judges sitting on the High Court of Australia bench have legalised SLAPP lawsuits, have legalised judicial corruption and have also given Capilano Honey the green light to continue to sell fake and poisonous honey as they have been for many years.
The Capilano Honey matter is probably the worst because they have been using the courts for almost 3 years now to try to conceal that they have been selling fake and poisonous honey. Capilano were also caught last year selling fake honey via thier Allowrie brand yet the High Court has done nothing to stop the abuse of the courts which continues to put the health and safety of the public at risk.
The main grounds I put forward to have the matters removed to the High Court were:
- The matters where SLAPP lawsuits which are: “intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.” (Read more)
- Chief Justice Tom Bathurst and other court staff were behind a police charge that was later dropped by the CDPP because it was baseless and I will never get natural justice in the NSW Supreme Court.
- I did jail time last year after I was convicted of calling Justice Clifton Hoeben a paedophile and Registrar Christopher Bradford a suspected paedophile and known bribe-taker and I would not get natural justice in the NSW Supreme Court.
The High Court of Australia made no mention of any of the details in their judgment and it is obvious why because the average person would agree that there is perceived bias if not real bias against me in the Supreme Court of NSW and at the very least an instate judge should be appointed to hear my matters. (Full details of my applications, including the applications and affidavits, can be seen on the High Court page I set up by clicking here)
The 3 matters I tried to have removed to the High Court were 3 SLAPP Lawsuits that have been going a number of years. All three matters, as per the below judgment, lead back to Kerry Stokes as Seven West Media who are paying for the Seven West Media and Jane Doe matters and Stokes was the major shareholder in Capilano Honey when they instituted proceedings against me in 2016 and they have used Stokes’ lawyers. Stokes is still a shareholder in Capilano as he retained his shareholding when they were privatised in December 2018. (Click here for more details about the three matters)
While I was waiting to have the High Court decide whether or not to remove the cases the Jane Doe matter was finalised in the Supreme Court of NSW which I lost. (Click here to read more) I now have another week to file a Notice of Intention to appeal in the Supreme Court of NSW.
The other 2 matters, Capilano Honey and Ben McKee v Dowling and Seven v Dowling are still afoot in the Supreme Court of NSW and neither have a final hearing date. Although Seven filed a notice of motion 2 years ago to have me found guilty of contempt and I filed the same against them a couple of months ago which are set down for hearing on the 2nd and 3rd of December 2019.
Judgment – No details to support dismissal
The latest High Court of Australia judgment below, with no details except the names of the parties, is identical to when they rejected my Special Leave to Appeal application I filed in January 2019 in regards to my conviction and jailing for contempt of court last year.
Justice Patrick Keane and Justice James Edelman dismissed the Special Leave application in May 2019 (Click here to read more) and Justice Geoffrey Nettle and Justice Michelle Gordon dismissed the 3 Applications for Removal last Thursday (10/10/19).
Dowling v Seven Network (Operations) Limited & Anor; Dowling v Capilano Honey Ltd & Anor; Dowling v Jane Doe 1 & Ors  HCASL 311 (10 October 2019) (Click here to see the judgment on the AustLII legal website)
Last Updated: 10 October 2019
SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED & ANOR
CAPILANO HONEY LTD & ANOR
JANE DOE 1 & ORS
- In each matter, the applicant’s application for an order for removal under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) of a cause now pending in the Supreme Court of New South Wales is refused. No proper basis for removal of each cause is identified and, given the current state of each cause, an order for removal is premature. Moreover, there is no basis identified to fragment the ordinary judicial process.
- Pursuant to r 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application with costs.
10 October 2019
If read a judgment from the courts they should detail all the relevant facts, the issues to be determined, the arguments of both parties and how the judge came to their decision based on the facts and arguments, not 3 lines dismissing the case as the High Court of Australia has done above. What is also an abuse is that the High Court has put all 3 matters in one judgment to try and minimize how obvious the SLAPP lawsuits are. It should be three separate judgments.
Previous High Court of Australia judgments
When Justice Patrick Keane and Justice James Edelman dismissed the Special Leave Application in May I wrote an article titled: “High Court of Australia’s Justice Keane and Justice Edelman caught protecting their bribe-taking and paedophile judicial mates” which started off:
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 than the line I just quoted which does nothing more than scandalize 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 court’s judgment. (Click here to read the full article)
What we now have is a pattern with the High Court judgments of not giving details to support their decisions which is a breach of common law which says judges have to give detailed judgments to support their decisions.
In May another High Court judgment was made against me which was suspicious, to say the least. I wrote at the time:
“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.” (Click here to read more)
The High Court of Australia is failing democracy and the public
How many cases the High Court of Australia is sweeping under the carpet without publishing a detailed judgment I don’t know but I suspect it is hundreds per year. Even more important is how many of those cases that were swept under the carpet showed judicial corruption or alleged judicial corruption?
It is one thing for people to say the High Court of Austalia and its judges are corrupt but it is another to have direct evidence that they are corrupt which is what we now have. I can say in full confidence that the High Court and its judges are covering up corruption in lower courts by corruptly dismissing Special Leave to Appeal applications and Applications for Removal that should have succeeded. The High Court is concealing it by breaching common law and failing to publish detailed judgments which is what is meant to keep the judges accountable.
I have now had matters decided by 5 of the 7 High Court of Australia judges and not one of them has failed to disappoint.
The recent experience with the High Court of Australia is really the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle of judicial corruption which I have been writing about and experiencing over several years in the lower courts. So, it’s time to write my second judicial corruption book and I have set a timeline to have it finished by the end of February 2020 and published by the end of March 2020. It will be self-published as I did previously.
Please use the Twitter, Facebook, email and other 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 or left of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.
Thank you for your support.