Attorney-General Christian Porter

Who bribed Justice Jayne Jagot in the Christian Porter v ABC defamation case? The incriminating video evidence

Below is video evidence that exposes some of Justice Jayne Jagot’s corrupt and biased conduct in the Christian Porter v ABC defamation matter. But before publishing the video evidence I sent Justice Jagot an email, as per below, giving her an opportunity to respond to several questions regarding her conduct.

Most criminals are dumb and leave a long trail of evidence and corrupt judges like Jayne Jagot are no different except they think they smarter than everyone else because they believe they are above the law. In this article we will have a look at some blatant evidence that points to Justice Jayne Jagot taking a bribe in the Christian Porter v ABC defamation case. A bribe does not have to be money. It can be anything, such as a promotion for a judge to the High Court of Australia.

The background to this matter is simple. Federal MP Christian Porter sued the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan for defamation in relation to an allegation he raped Katharine Thornton. The matter was discontinued before final hearing. But there was argument with the media, News Corp and Nine’s papers, about suppressing certain documents in the court file. I filed an application and later an affidavit and written submissions to intervene to argue against the suppression orders and a hearing was on the 9th of July with a judgment on the 30th of July.

On the 1st of August I published an article titled “Christian Porter’s corrupt judge Jayne Jagot has illegally suppressed a lot more evidence than the public realise. Why? And on whose orders?” (Click here to read the article) which has a lot of the background information to this article. This is a follow-up article with powerful video evidence.

Justice Jagot failed to publish my affidavit and written submissions when she said she would. Who did Justice Jagot have private communication with?

On Tuesday the 17th of August I sent the below email to Justice Jayne Jagot at the Federal Court of Australia.

Dear Justice Jagot

In your judgment, Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 863, you say at paragraph 72:

“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”.

Justice Jagot I have a few questions for a news article I will be publishing:

  1. Can you advise who you had private communication with to come to the conclusion that “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”?
  2. Why was it not raised in open court?
  3. Why wasn’t the offending parts of “Mr Dowling’s affidavit and submissions” redacted and the rest of the of the affidavit and submissions published on the online court file the same as you have done for numerous other documents in the same matter?

I think it is only fair that before you respond that I refer your Honour to the CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 34 – Judge or magistrate acting oppressively or when interested. Specifically part 4 “Acting when interested” which has a penalty of “Imprisonment for 2 years”.

Can you please respond by 5pm today (17/8/21) so I can publish.


Shane Dowling

At the time of writing this article Justice Jagot has not responded to the above email.

In the below video from the hearing on the 9th of July 2021 Justice Jagot asks if there are any objections to any of the documents tendered. The ABC’s barrister said they objected to an affidavit from Christian Porter’s lawyer. There is a discussion, and it is agreed that some pages will be redacted, and a new redacted affidavit filed and published on the courts online file. In regards to my affidavit and written submission there is no objection and Justice Jagot says she will publish my affidavit and written submissions on the court’s online file.

Justice Jagot needs to explain what happened and who she spoke to make her change her mind from what she said on the 9th of July in above video where she says she will publish my affidavit and written submissions on the courts online file. And changed her mind in her judgment on the 30th of July where she said she wouldn’t as per the above email. 

Naming Christian Porter’s alleged rape victim Katharine Thornton in my affidavit – video evidence

In the below video Justice Jagot very quickly tells me I can’t name Katherine Thornton when there was no legal reason not to.

As I said my in my last article on this matter:

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. (Click here to read more)

On the 10th of July I reported the following and nothing has changed:

The 9th of July hearing went for 2 hours and a replay is still up on the internet (Click here to watch). I start my submissions in the video just before the 1 hour and 22 minutes mark. How long the video will be available I do not know. (Click here to read more) For whatever reason the video is still on the internet and I copied key parts over the last few days, as above, in relation to evidence of Justice Jagot’s conduct. Everything is this article goes to the heart of Justice Jayne Jagot’s suitability to be a judge and is therefore protected political communication as per the High Court judgment Lange v ABC.

Justice Jagot ignores Justice Steven Rares – (Click here to read my written submissions and click here to read my affidavit)

There are numerous reasons why Justice Jagot didn’t want to publish my affidavit and written submissions and all the reasons were because they were damaging to Christian Porter’s application to suppress documents. One key reason is because I quoted a speech by Justice Jagot’s fellow Federal Court of Australia judge Steven Rares. A key quote is below:

On page 5 of my written submissions, I have an extract titled:

Justice Steven Rares – Extract from a Speech at the Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium – Sydney 7 October 2007 – 

On page 7 of my written submission where am still quoting the Justice Steven Rares speech it says:

Are courts, judges or judgments within the implied constitutional freedom?

  1. An underlying rationale in Lange is that the electors must have the ability to acquire relevant information in order to cast a fully informed vote in an election for members of the Parliament. Accordingly, the ability to cast such a fully informed vote depends upon the freedom of communication which Lange identified as an indispensable incident of the representative government mandated by the Constitution.

That is one of the most important quotes in my submission which it totally ignored by Justice Jayne Jagot in her judgment and is another major reason why she refused to publish my written submissions because she does not want anyone to see Justice Rares’ speech as it undermines and/or helps expose Justice Jagot’s lies in her judgment.

Justice Rares is very clear where under the heading “Are courts, judges or judgments within the implied constitutional freedom?” he says “electors must have the ability to acquire relevant information in order to cast a fully informed vote in an election for members of the Parliament.” which in effect confirms the public are entitled to see all the documents in the Porter v ABC matter.

Attorneys-General did not intervene

There is one key argument in Justice Jagot’s judgment that is a huge giveaway about how dodgy the whole judgment is. I was directed to file and serve all the Attorneys-General with a s78B Notice of a Constitutional matter because I said that I would argue that any tampering with the court file and suppression orders would infringe on the implied freedom of political communication as implied in the Australian constitution. (Click here to read more) When someone runs a constitutional argument in court all the Attorneys-General need to be notified and be given an opportunity to intervene and be heard on the matter.

Attorneys-general almost never intervene to be heard when a matter is before a single judge and any lawyer, or at least any constitutional lawyer, will tell you that. The Attorneys-general almost always wait until it goes to appeal or to the High Court of Australia. But in Justice Jagot’s judgment she says at paragraph 66:

“The issue with which I must deal, whether or not to make proposed consent order 3, has nothing to do with the implied right of freedom of political communication. This may explain why no Attorney-General has sought to be heard in respect of Mr Dowling’s interlocutory application“.

That is a ridiculous statement for Justice Jagot, or any judge, to make as she would be well aware, as would most of the legal fraternity, that Attorneys-general almost never intervene when a matter is before a single judge. But Justice Jagot also knows most of the public would not be aware of when Attorneys-general intervene, and when they don’t, and she knows her deception would make sense to the average person.

I could say a lot more but above are some key questions that Justice Jagot needs to answer which so far she is refusing to do.

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.

17 replies »

  1. Hard to have much confidence in Judiciary in Australia, some decisions handed down in Federal Court and High Court question the independence and biased considerations they provide.

  2. The Qld Attorney General intervened in my Court of Disputed Returns application but the Human Rights Commission was nobbled.

    It was a single SC judge AND I saw clear evidence of Crown Law and AG intervention.

    In fact the judge is ex Crown Prosecutor and allowed scandalous conduct by the ECQ General Counsel.

  3. More bafflegab from the judiciary to keep the peasants mystified. On another note, why do lawyers (and judges) usually pose in front of hundreds of legal tomes that looked like they have never been opened? Are we to be impressed by their apparent mastery of the complexities of law? Never happened with the many I hired.

    • Ross, that photo may have been taken inside the library of barristers chambers or the court. Agree with you on the “bafflegab” as you call it. When we consider that the law for some years now has adopted a process of Plain English, one would think that the notion of plain speak would have reached the judiciary as well.

  4. It is well past time that the leadership party in government halts their conniving with Australia`s
    judiciary appointees to traduce Mr. Shane Dowling’s intervention.
    The heavy bias directed to Mr. Dowling’s contentions had been visibly displayed during the above video presentation.
    This bias implies that Mr. Dowling’s representing his role as an Australian media producer and fact news presenter, engaged in publishing important matters of concern to the people of Australia as they expect, is being subjected to unwarranted censure by that presiding judge.
    One should expect the same accord of privilege as was offered to the defense counsel must be offered to Mr. Dowling, equal to that which is offered to the defense counsel.

    I observe that Mr. Dowling is not given the equal status as given to the defense counsel to allow their proffered bias to the judge in deciding the validity of the non publication of evidence statements or portions thereof.
    Which prevents the case matter from proceeding forward on its actual bona fide merit.

  5. I just read her bio. I notice that she only practiced as a barrister for 4 years before being appointed to the Land and Environment Court in 2006 and then to the Federal Court in 2008. In my experience, that’s a really short hop, skip and a jump from leaving her law firm in 2002 to the Federal Court in 2008. Most of the barristers I have worked with and known have had to wait at least 15 to 20 years before they are even considered for the bench. Just an observation.

  6. Minnie, all the barristers I have encountered have been hopeless incompetents when it came to representing me. Maybe that`s why so many have been disbarred over the last two decades as posted by the Legal Services Commissioners. Heaven help us if any had been promoted to judge.

  7. reading everyone’s comments are all true and yet the public are the only ones who can see/inquire about the obvious corruption that goes on not only in courts but in our governments.Wish there was a way to sack the lot and start again with real people, that can not be brought off/or bribed in any way. Thanks KCA you have more guts than the rest of us.

  8. ‘“The issue with which I must deal, whether or not to make proposed consent order 3, has nothing to do with the implied right of freedom of political communication. This may explain why no Attorney-General has sought to be heard in respect of Mr Dowling’s interlocutory application“.’

    That’s how they do it, Shane: define something out of existence. Then they don’t have to deal with its substance.

  9. There’s a far worse virus in this country than Covid-19 and it’s very obvious where the source is. It’s called the federal government. If there weren’t so many lickspittle mainstream journalists willing to play the government’s tune then we could get rid of it very quickly.

    Personally I’m so fed up with the obvious corruption which operates through Lieberal tentacles everywhere. Australia needs a damn good clean up.

  10. After my experience with a small claims court in Qld.I lost faith in the justice system. Small or large courts it all seems to be the same.

  11. It has been revealed that a secret donor has bailed out Christian Porter for some of the cost of his court efforts.

    If politicians in office can be bailed out in such a way (gifted) and none of us know who’s paying for it, then why is this not seen as a massive security risk issue? They have been banging on about foreign interference and the need for high security for years and that’s been used to spy increasingly into every Australians privacy with so many new laws. Yet secrecy is the method par excellence used by Morrison’s opaque government.

    Imagine if it was Labor, the newspapers would be covered with material exposing this, and they’d probably take lead in the conjecture that it was Chinese or Russian money or that it could be corruption.

    This simply not good enough. It is a form of a gift and the donor should be revealed with the sort of money involved, otherwise it could be a security risk. A federal politician is not free to do what he likes in this sense without serious questions being asked.

    I wonder what KCA thinks about this?

Leave a Reply