Attorney-General Christian Porter

Christian Porter’s corrupt judge Jayne Jagot has illegally suppressed a lot more evidence than the public realise. Why? And on whose orders?

Justice Jayne Jagot has aided and abetted Christian Porter in his cover-up and she has had a lot more material, 36 pages, suppressed from the court’s online file than the public know. There was no application or argument in open court to suppress the documents and the only reason given by Justice Jagot for suppressing the documents is “given they contain apparently scandalous and scurrilous material about third parties” which raises the question who said that to Justice Jagot, on what basis and when?

I know this for a fact because Justice Jagot says in her judgment that she has removed my affidavit and written submissions, that I filed in the matter for the hearing on the 9th of July, from the courts online file . Given we are in a pandemic, and Sydney is in lockdown, removal from the online file has the same effect as removing the documents from the court file permanently at least until the pandemic is over.

What makes it so scandalous is court case has dealt with suppressed evidence and applications to remove and redact documents in court file where there has been extensive argument to justify it. But when it came to my affidavit and written submissions there was no argument and/or application to have the affidavit and written submissions removed. 

What does “apparently” mean in her reason where she says, “given they contain apparently scandalous and scurrilous material about third parties”? “Apparently” means she was told by someone else. Who was it?  Justice Jagot’s abuse of the law is obvious because even it was true and my documents did contain “scandalous and scurrilous material about third parties” those parts could have been redacted, like numerous other documents in this matter have been when challenged, and put back in the court’s online file. And who is this “third party” and what did I say about them?

The Federal Court of Australia has set up pages on their website for public interest court cases where it publishes all the court documents and evidence etc online so the public can access it at anytime which helps build the publics confidence in an open and transparent judiciary.

At the hearing on the 9th of July Justice Jagot gave the other parties the opportunity to object to anything in my affidavit and written submissions and they didn’t so Jagot then said she would be publishing my affidavit and written submissions on the court’s online page for the matter. But Jagot has failed to do that even though she has published the written submissions by Porter, the ABC and the barrister for the other intervenors who are News Corp and Nine Entertainment’s newspapers. So what happened after the 9th of July hearing to make Justice Jagot change her mind? And given the other parties didn’t object to my affidavit and written submissions being accepted by the court and being published online who did?

Jagot was very sneaky by attacking my written submissions and evidence in her judgment and then failing to publish my written submissions and evidence on the court’s online page because they have information that Jagot wants to hide from the public and so the public can’t verify if Jagot is correct or lying in her judgment. If Jagot had confidence in the lies she said about me in her judgment she would not have had to suppress my affidavit and written submissions to conceal the truth.

Justice Jayne Jagot and Christian Porter

Justice Jayne Jagot and Christian Porter

One example of why Porter would want my documents suppressed is because in my affidavit, to prove I am a news publisher so I can intervene in the matter, I have the full article I published on the 2nd of March outing Porter as the alleged rapist and the article has a picture of Katharine Thornton. Porter’s lawyers and Justice Jagot have been suppressing Katharine Thornton’s name so they don’t want the public to see affidavit because the more people who know her name the bigger chance more witnesses might come forward against Porter. It also humanises the story which they also don’t want.

In hindsight it was a big giveaway that Jagot was in Porter’s hip pocket when at the hearing on the 9th of July I read out Katharine Thornton’s name which was in my affidavit and Jagot told me not to say Katharine Thornton’s name again. I asked Jagot why I could not say Katharine Thornton’s name and she said it was because Katharine Thornton’s parents had asked for her name not to be mentioned. I said if that is what Jagot is directing then I would abide but I said words to the effect that is only hearsay by Porter’s lawyers and her former boyfriend James Hooke told to court when he gave evidence in the associated Dyer v Chrysanthou matter that he would prefer to use her full name. Jagot never responded as she had no comeback. The net effect is Justice Jayne Jagot has suppressed Katharine Thornton’s name when there is no legal basis to do so which only benefits Porter.

My affidavit and written submissions should still be in the court file and there is nothing wrong with me publishing them but by not being on the online court file virtually no one would have access to them until the Sydney lockdown is over and by then it will be old news and Justice Jagot knows that. (Click here to read my written submissions and click here to read my affidavit)

I published links to the affidavit and written submissions that I uploaded to this website on the 10th of July in an article titled “Christian Porter’s lies exposed in the Federal Court of Australia by “News Publisher” Shane Dowling” so someone could have read them and made a complaint. But who, when and why wasn’t it done in open court or by filing an application?

This is prime evidence of a judge abusing her position and being totally unaccountable. She just removes the documents from the online file and says it because “they contain apparently scandalous and scurrilous material about third parties”.

The average person would have to file an application to have an affidavit and written submissions removed and they would need an exceptional reason to do so. But someone has received special treatment from Justice Jagot which has also hid her lies in her judgment about me and also helped Christian Porter.

It should always be remembered that when Porter started the defamation case against the ABC he was the Attorney-General and Justice Jayne Jagot ultimately reported to him and at one stage the media were reporting that Jagot was in line to be appointed to the High Court of Australia and it would have been Porter’s decision whether or not to recommend her. So, how well do Porter and Jagot know each other?

Justice Jayne Jagot’s lies to save Christian Porter – Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 863 (Click here to read the judgment)

Justice Jagot also failed to name my website in her judgment as she obviously didn’t want readers to see my website which is further evidence she has tried to conceal from the public the truth because anyone looking at my website would agree that I am a news publisher as I break my fair share of stories and  I’ve been doing it for over 10 years.

Justice Jagot says at paragraph 64 of her judgment:

“Mr Dowling is undoubtedly a publisher but, on the evidence, what he publishes is not “news”. He does not, it seems, report on events. From his affidavit it appears that he publishes opinions and comments purporting to focus on “anti-corruption” in the government and the judiciary, much of which appears to consist of unfounded scandalous and scurrilous allegations.”

Where is the evidence to support the claim my website “appears to consist of unfounded scandalous and scurrilous allegations”? Which part of my affidavit proves that? How can the public verify that given she has suppressed my affidavit? 

It’s the old stitch up by a judge. Jagot trashes me and my reputation and then makes sure the public can’t question the truth of what Jagot has said by suppressing my affidavit and written submissions.

At paragraph 71 Jagot says: The public interest is also secured by the fact that Mr Dowling has been heard, in open court, as to whether or not he has a right to be heard about proposed consent order 3 and these reasons have been given and will be published explaining why he has no such right.

Yes, Jagot is saying how accountable she is because I was heard in open court and because she will publish her reasons. But then she contradicts herself and says:

At paragraph 72 Jagot says: The only other observation I will make relating to Mr Dowling is this. Because of the public interest in this matter and the rights of inspection given by r 2.32(2) of the Court Rules, the Court established an online file on its website so members of the public could access documents they would be entitled to inspect under r 2.32(2) free of charge. Mr Dowling’s affidavit and submissions will not be placed on the online file given they contain apparently scandalous and scurrilous material about third parties.

So, at paragraph 71 she is talking up open justice then at paragraph 72 she is pulling a swifty and concealing documents from the public for no justifiable legal reason.  

Justice Jayne Jagot went on a personal tirade against me in her judgment, as I had applied to intervene as a news publisher to argue against the suppression orders, which achieved little but expose her own corrupt judgment. I publish a judicial corruption website, so I am public enemy number one as far as judges are concerned. But Jagot was always going to hand down a corrupt judgment as she also ignored the submissions from News Corp and Nine. Jagot would have considered going after me in her judgment was just a bonus.

I accused Justice Jagot of being corrupt in the first book published in 2009, Love Letters From The Bar Table, which she knew as I declared it at the end my submissions. Chapter 7 is titled “Justice Perram, Justice Jagot and Justice Buchanan”. I think I have been well and truly proven right about Jagot being a corrupt judge.

Justice Jagot has a lot of questions to answer

Who had private communication with Justice Jagot and received a private ruling by her which benefited Christian Porter? And when? And why is there no detailed judgment justifying why Jagot has suppressed my affidavit and written submissions given she has given a detailed judgment on Friday (30/7/21) why she has removed 27 pages of the ABC’s defence and Christian Porter’s reply from the court file?

This matter relates to the former Attorney-General allegedly raping a girl and Justice Jagot is trying to help cover that up. For what reason Justice Jagot is doing it is unknown but it is possibly to benifit her career. Is she fit to be a judge? She’s not even fit to be a lawyer.

I could dissect the lies in Jagot’s judgment a lot more, but I will save that for another time. What is above is blatant judicial corruption and I will follow up. The hole Christian Porter has dug for himself just keeps getting worse by the day. 

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. If you would like to support the continuance of this website, 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)

Thank you for your support.

Follow Kangaroo Court of Australia for free and be notified via email immediately there is a new article posted

Enter your email address below and click on the follow button. You can unfollow at any time. 

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

22 replies »

  1. I remember a story going round that judges redacted court recordings to put their own spin on permanent records. Anyone confirm?

      • It certainly occurred in Regina vs Kessing, aka the Customs airport case in 2007.
        His barrister was prevented from lodging an appeal against conviction for over 12 months (normally appeals must be lodged within 3 months) as the transcripts were not made available because, in the words of Judge James Bennett’s Clerk, “HH needed to sanitize them“.
        The appeal was able to be lodged more than 9 months late due to their having been withheld until all public &media interest in the case had subsided.

  2. I disagree with your assertions. Judge Jago was consistent in her judgement, as like, Newscorp and others, you sought to jump on the coat tails of the affair that Jago had previously ruled that the ABC defence would not be made public after Porter, always a coward, withdrew his defamation case, and “settled” outside the court process, thus ham-stringing his own case to stop information that would have come out if the case had proceeded. If his case had proceeded, it could have perhaps even led to criminal prosecution, something that the court of public opinion wants, but Porter is strenuously avoiding, it would seem.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/30/christian-porter-defamation-case-judge-rules-abc-defence-file-wont-be-made-public

    Judge Jago, to her credit, and with little alternative, provided the un-redacted ABC defence to the SA Coroner, perhaps in the hope that, those coronial findings would instigate further proceedings through the legal system, and even perhaps trigger a historic rape prosecution against Porter, simply because he has not as yet been brought to answer for his crime.

    If Judge Jago had proceeded in the matter as you opine, then that could have led to a serious miscarriage of justice. The media, whether it be Newscorp, Nine or Kangaroo Court are not arbiters of the law, and to suggest otherwise, is wrong. I believe that Judge Jago behaved appropriately within the law as she is required to do, and to suggest she is corrupt is defamatory.

    This case is far from over, as far as Porter is concerned.

  3. Clearly the judge erred & it appears that this alone favours Porter.
    Mr Dowling’s material submissions should have been considered & certainly not removed from court records.
    Question now is what appeal mechanism is available to Mr Dowling?

  4. Why now a concerted effort to aid the alleged perpetrator of the crime of sodomy and rape of the victim Katherine Thornton?
    Another tenet of the Australian Commonwealth Constitution, the separation of powers, has since been thrown out the window.
    At the end of it all it will be the elite legal Bulldogs shifting the sands where once upon a time stood the structure of the alleged criminal case lodged against a member of the party in leadership.

    In this case one should know the full extent of the enemy forces supporting the accused?
    This case will likely set a precedent of accepting the worst carriage of justice in Australia.

  5. williambtm, the carriage of justice in Australia is in the power of the judges, not The Constitution Of Australia which is in the archives gathering dust.
    The continuous information from KCoA has indicated that certain politicians and judges are aware of the vile, punishable actions by their individual aquaintances but continue to be unpunished which would happen if the related articles were adhered to in the Australian Constitution.

  6. Jayne Jagot you are a disgrace to your profession. Porter is using everything in the book to stop paying for the rape allegation. You have no pride in yourself or your country. God help you

    • Mike. Like it Nice one ! Sadly however a reflection on where liberty and justice is headed in Australia.

  7. I just hope and encourage the women of Australia, will organise ongoing marches and rallies at election time … around Australia … but specifically at the alleged rapist’s electorate of Pearce and those of the minister for women and the “prime minister for women’s affairs” – This is truly is a joke – It doesn’t even get to the door of the pub let alone pass any test. I for one am truly disgusted with this rabble of arrogant, entitled, morally and ethically corrupt federal government. Give me the dates and I’ll turn up with 10 of my friends …

  8. Who would have thought a prospective High Court judge would be an alleged rapist protector?
    Ghislaine Maxwell would be happy to share a jail cell with her.

  9. It would be to our credit if the preponderance of Judges were good purveyors of the Laws and Justice. Unfortunately they are not. Our Constitution needs a good review and restatement.

  10. KCA Please continue to expose the corruption of Australia by those whom purportedly claim to be serving us.

  11. Effectively the alleged protector of Christian Porter, Justice Jayne Jagot, appears quite comfortable with aiding and supporting an alleged rapist, therefore a person not fit to be a member of Australia’s judiciary.
    Apparently, Justice Jagot has no interest in the pristine carriage of justice in our Australian courts, nor toward the level of harms and the injuries inflicted on the now late Ms. Katharine Thornton?

    There can be no other conclusion than Justice Jayne Jagot must have her name removed from the judiciary promotions list, then that her legal professional practicing certificate be withdrawn.

Leave a Reply