Kangaroo Court of Australia publisher, Shane Dowling (me), has filed a Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit to intervene in the Christian Porter v ABC defamation matter currently afoot in the Federal Court of Australia. A screenshot of the online court file shows that below. If my Notice of Motion is successful, I will only be intervening to argue against Christian Porter’s application for suppression orders on part of the ABC’s defence. My Notice of Motion is set down for hearing on the 19th of May but as with all court hearings, that could change.
I stated the reason why I was considering making an application to intervene at the end of my last article on the matter which is titled “Christian Porter’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou tries to override her own precedent in the Geoffrey Rush case to get interim suppression orders for Porter” where I said:
For reasons that are largely outlined above, I tried to intervene in the hearing on Friday, which the media can do, to argue against the suppression orders. I emailed the court Thursday night but only received a response after the hearing on Friday telling me I would need to file a Notice of Motion and affidavit to intervene. At the hearing on Friday, there was already one barrister, Dauid Sibtain, intervening on behalf of News Corp and Nine Entertainment but he was in the courtroom which might explain how he managed to intervene. But News Corp and Nine are both aligned to the Liberal Party which might impact on how hard they try to have the suppression orders lifted.
I am still considering filing the Notice of Motion to intervene as I think with the changing media landscape it is time independent journalists do intervene when appropriate to argue against suppression orders. I have had some good wins lifting suppression orders in my own matters including in the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, so I know that area of the law well as it is not overly complex. Christian Porter needs an “exceptional circumstance” to justify the suppression orders which he does not have nor did his barrister Sue Chrysanthou claim Porter had one when in court on Friday. (Click here to read more)
At the time of writing this article it has come to my attention that Jo Dyer, who was a friend of Christian Porter’s alleged rape victim Katharine Thornton, filed an application “seeking an order to restrain defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, from acting for Mr Porter on the basis that she previously advised Ms Dyer in a separate matter.” It was in court today (12/5/21) and will be back in court for a hearing in the week beginning May 24. (Click here to read more)
If Sue Chrysanthou does not recuse herself from representing Christian Porter the whole court case will become a circus, although some would argue it already is.
Below are screenshots of the online court file for the matter NSD206/2021: Charles Christian Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation and you can see my name under Documents Filed and under Parties.
Even though it says my documents were filed on the 11th of May I only received them today, the 12th of May.
There was a $520 filing fee, so a big thank you to the supporters who donated and made it possible. Barrister, Dauid Sibtain, was at the last hearing intervening on behalf of News Corp and Nine Entertainment yet his name is not listed as a party nor is there any Notice of Motion or affidavit filed by him which seems odd given I was required to.
The orders I have asked for in the Notice of Motion are below:
Interlocutory orders sought
- Journalist and publisher Shane Dowling be granted permission to intervene for the interlocutory application by Charles Christian Porter for suppression orders.
- That I be awarded the costs of the filing of this application.
- I am on the Gold Coast, so a court order if need be that I can attend the hearing via video link.
The details in the supporting affidavit are below:
- I am a journalist and publisher, and I am authorised to make this affidavit on the behalf of myself and my website.
- I am a journalist and have published the Kangaroo Court of Australia website since 2011 which specialises in reporting on judicial and government corruption and associated matters.
- The applicant, Charles Christian Porter, has tendered evidence mentioning my websites associated Facebook page 21 times. In Schedule H of Porter’s evidence the Kangaroo Court of Australia website makes up 21 of the 25 Facebook references named.
- I sent an email to the court last week as per below:
From: SHANE DOWLING
Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2021 11:49 PM
To: Bruce Phillips
Subject: Justice Jagot hearing – Porter V ABC – Intervention by the media to challenge the requested suppression orders
Dear Mr Phillips
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the applicant’s Notice of Motion, being heard on Friday 7th of May 2021at 9.30am, requests suppression orders be put on certain evidence of the respondents which obviously includes that evidence being suppressed from the media.
On that basis, I would like to intervene on behalf of myself as a journalist and publisher of the anti-corruption website Kangaroo Court of Australia for over 10 years. I am well versed in the relevant precedents in relation to suppression orders and I have had success in having suppression orders lifted in the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal as a self-represented litigant in defamation matters. Two of those precedents are listed below with the links:
Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 2)  NSWSC 865 (8 June 2018) – Justice Lucy McCallum found in my favour and lifted suppression orders and non-publication orders and a super injunction
Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 2)  NSWCA 217 (3 October 2018) – A unanimous decision by the Court of Appeal in my favour.
In 2009 I also won a judgement in the Federal Court of Australia in the matter: Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (ACN 003 357 720) (Formerly John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd)  FCA 1470 (1 October 2008) – Justice Jayne Jagot found in my favour
As a journalist and someone who is well qualified to represent myself in court I think in a matter of such public importance as this matter it is vital for the integrity and reputation of the court that all media requesting to intervene should be allowed to put submissions regarding the suppression orders requested by the applicant.
Suppression orders should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, as per the High Court precedent ABC v O’Neill (2006), and this matter has none and I would like to make submissions on behalf of myself and other media.
- As a journalist, I regularly deal with the media division of federal and state police, politicians and other bodies. I can provide further details if required but believe there should be no issue with me intervening.
End of affidavit
Normally I would publish a link to the court documents I have filed but this time I will wait until the court says I can so there can be no complaints.
Hopefully, I will be granted leave to file submissions against Christian Porter’s suppression order application. But my Notice of Motion is also a test run for the other defamation matters before the courts against independent journalists and social media users who we all need to support whenever possible.
Update 17/5/21: Because the main matter has been adjourned the judge has adjourned the Case Management Hearing for my Notice of Motion and it is now listed at 9:30am on Thursday 27 May 2021 and will be broadcast live on the internet on the link here: (Click here to watch at 9.30am on Thursday the 27-5-21)
Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.
If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
Categories: Attorney-General Christian Porter