Peter Dutton

Peter Dutton gets sucker-punched by his own stupidity and ends up losing financially on his defamation win against Shane Bazzi

Peter Dutton, who is now the Minister for Defence, will almost certainly end up making a substantial financial loss from his defamation “win” against Twitter user Shane Bazzi after the judge in effect ruled Dutton and his lawyers had abused the law. The judge found Dutton should have instituted the proceedings in a lower court where costs are cheaper, and he should have made an offer to settle earlier than four days before the hearing was about to start when a lot of the legal costs had already been spent in preparation for the hearing.

A number of Federal MP’s and State MP’s, which includes Christian Porter, John Barilaro and Peter Dutton, have sued for defamation this year with the strategy backfiring and costing them money. Andrew Laming did have a win against the ABC as they settled the matter but he has also sued Nine Entertainment and they are fighting the claim so it might end up backfiring for him as well. 

The Guardian reported (8/12/21):

Peter Dutton will not receive his full legal costs from refugee activist Shane Bazzi, who he successfully sued for defamation, because it would have been more appropriate to pursue the case in a lower court, the federal court has decided.

Justice Richard White on Wednesday agreed with a bid by Bazzi’s lawyers to trim the costs down, ordering him to pay them as if the case had been run in the Queensland Magistrates Court.

In November, the defence minister won his defamation case, with damages of $35,000, over a tweet labelling him a “rape apologist” which the court agreed did convey the defamatory imputation he “excuses rape”. (Click here to read more)

It is hard to tell whether it was incompetence by Peter Dutton’s lawyers and or whether Dutton ignored his lawyer’s advice and he personally made stupid decisions which were always going to be exposed in court by Bazzi’s lawyers. Given Dutton has form on the board for ignoring legal advice when he was Home Affairs Minister, and on one occasion Dutton was threatened with contempt by a Federal Court judge, there has to be a fair chance the poor legal decisions were made by Dutton in an attempt to run up Shane Bazzi’s legal costs.

Peter Dutton won the defamation case on the 24th of November 2021 and I published an article titled “Peter Dutton perjures himself to win a $35,000 defamation payout but refuses to sue regarding numerous allegations of corruption” which starts off:

Peter Dutton, who is the Minister for Defence and has a long history of blatant corrupt conduct, has won a defamation claim over one message published on Twitter which said he was a “rapist apologist” and has been awarded $35,000.

The problem is that Peter Dutton has said worse about QLD Premier Palaszczuk in 2020, accusing her of “siding with and protecting paedophiles and sex offenders”, which was broadcast to tens of thousands, and he has not apologised or retracted the comments. Yet Dutton claimed on the witness stand under oath that he was “offended and distressed by the Tweet” that Shane Bazzi posted calling Dutton a “rapist apologist”. Does Dutton have one rule for himself and one rule for others?

When looking at all the evidence the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Peter Dutton perjured himself. And by his lack of defamation action for more serious allegations, which includes but is not limited to protecting paedophiles, fraud, benefiting from election fraud and lying about why he left the QLD Police Force, Dutton has confirmed those allegations as being true and correct. I’ve made those allegations on this website, and they are well documented and referenced with evidence as per the below quotes and links, and he has never even sent a threatening letter to me and other media have made some of those allegations as well and to my knowledge he has not threatened them either.

What Peter Dutton did was to sue one person, with limited funds, over one tweet as he wanted to keep it narrow because if it expanded to other allegations against Dutton he would be in trouble and have to walk a minefield of allegations which his political career wouldn’t survive. (Click here to read more)

The below video has Peter Dutton making the allegations against QLD Premier Anna Palaszczuk and my commentary on the matter.

The defamation judgment was on the 24th of November with Dutton being awarded $35,825 and the costs hearing was on the 8th of December which resulted in the below court orders. 

With Peter Dutton having to pay his own costs and 50% Bazzi’s costs, as per above, for the hearing on the 8th of December then he won’t get much change out the $35,825 he received in damages. And then for Shane Bazzi only having to pay costs for the Federal Court of Australia hearing as if they were heard in the Queensland Magistrates Court, as per above orders, it will see Peter Dutton being out of pocket tens of thousands of dollars for his defamation hearing and as well as looking like a fool of instituting such a frivolous claim in the first place.

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.

15 replies »

  1. Dutton is not stupid. He is adept at deflecting righteous criticism. He and his fellow MP’s have fleeced thousands, if not millions off the Australian taxpayer for years. Morrison is a multi-millionaire as is Dutton, and you can bet Taylor is too. I wouldn’t be surprised if they all have accounts in the Cayman Islands, along with their coal mates.

    We can gnash out teeth all we like, but these politicians will be floating around on a luxury yacht somewhere, drinking the most expensive booze and laughing at their good fortune at the expense of the Australian people.

    ZERO MORRISON IN 2022

    • Well said Ken. The unfortunate thing is everything you said is true and no one gives a stuff except those who know what scum these people really are. I continue to wonder why,”we the people” allow these criminals to get away with it. Misdirection and corruption ….hey presto …. it’s a little magic trick. That and the fact that Australians seem to have very short memories.

  2. Politicians are like a bad dose of piles,,,they come out don’t go back and make themselves with their self righteous bulldust be a right pain in the butt,,,ALL these political scum are self serving crap,,,corruption and lies goes hand in hand with these douche bags,,,and they have the hide to call them selves Honourable,,,what hypocrisy is that,,, they have no honour and are just a rabble serving their own God called mammon,,,they always seem to accumulate millions hidden from the public they are supposed to serve,,,Politician is the new word meaning lying cheating manipulating blood sucking leeches

    • I have just read the latest about Dutton stirring up the Chinese and beating his war drum – which sounds like tink,tink,tink. He is surely as dumb as a box of rocks, and that is giving rocks a good name.

      On the other hand, if China ever wants to bang their war drum, it would sound like BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!

      You do not antagonise your main trading partner for no reason.

  3. This as well as the fact that Porter’s top silk had to have it explained to her by a judge that she had a blatant conflict of interest suggests that the LNP are getting their legal advice from lawyers who appear to be criminally inept.

  4. In an attempt to support a fellow member of a substantial association from the hierarchies attempt to silence this member who dared to ask questions about management practices.Using initially the district court to imply his dishonesty based on their lies.
    The initial approach to shut me up was to request an apology coupled with a demand for $10,000 purportedly to cover legal cost. Shut and go away
    Research showed me that it only cost $500 per hour plus GST for the solicitor, and $900 to register a claim in the NSW Supreme court if I didn’t capitulate, on this demand..
    However the the standard up front cost of gaining a Defamation lawyer was $50,000 litigation could take 2 years and cost 150 to 200 thousand dollars without penalties should the plaintiff win.
    Another member who was approached on this basis decided he couldn’t risk his families security capitulated to the demand. Simply bullied into silence.

    Found that it is too easy for the courts at all levels to be used as means of bullying.
    A barrister that offers Pro Bono is not necessarily providing charity but simply fulfilling an obligation to the profession to do percentage of Pro Bono work, without any intention of of providing an honest defense. A solicitor that begins with a contract that is based on No Win No Fee, shortly attempts to change these rules early in the 3 years we litigated.
    The point made in the Dutton case about being denied arbitration until just before the trial date appears to be standard procedure, when the plaintiffs plan is to spin the litigation out with the aim of placing the defendant under increasing financial pressure, without needing to have a very strong case in the first place.
    Helps if the plaintiff is spending other peoples money!

    Keith Judge

    • This plaintiff ploy of putting the defendant under financial pressure is used extensively in the Family Court jurisdiction and the judges allow it to happen.

  5. IMHO, at first, after reading this article, I really could not say anything … because I just couldn’t stop laughing!!! It must be a “boofhead” thing … is it?

  6. Welcome, Keith and John, to the legal world of hanky-panky. Along with many others, I have been beating the drum of legal and judicial corruption for many years for little or no change. Thing is that folk like yourself ignored our complaints using the good old Aussie fallback that if it never happened to them, it never happened. Until it did. So excuse me if I can`t dredge up sympathy for your plight. You can rest assured that, in ten years time, there will be fresh moaners talking of the raw deal they got in the courts

    • RC. Plight! Moaners! We didn’t ignore anything. Despite the best efforts of the bully boys and a clearly corrupt legal system. The legal costs of many 10 of thousands of dollars was picked by the plaintiff when it became apparent I wasn’t backing down and they had no case of substance.
      The problem with beating drums is they are only likely to be heard by new comers to the system.
      Or maybe your drums need tuning!

  7. It’s not a question of a raw deal or wrong decision.
    It’s that the process itself is worse than the decision.
    It takes too long and costs too much.
    The judges need a shake-up.
    They think it’s about them instead of the litigants.

  8. Hate to think how much time these pollies who initiate legal proceedings spend consulting with their lawyers & in courts while on the public payroll.

Leave a Reply