Justice Ian Harrison

Justice Ian Harrison the corrupt bribe-taking judge who found Chris Dawson guilty of murder

Justice Ian Harrison is just as corrupt and ethically bankrupt as most of the criminals he sends to jail are. I don’t dispute it was correct for Harrison to find Chris Dawson guilty of murder, but this article is a side story of a corrupt legal system which I am well credentialled to tell as Harrison has previously issued a super-injunction against me (2014) and jailed me for contempt (2017).

For anyone to give any credit to anyone in the law enforcement or legal fraternity in NSW for the conviction of Chris Dawson is wrong because it is a storey of widespread failure, and all Justice Ian Harrison did was partially correct so many past wrongs so he is no hero. And as you will see below, I touch on other past wrongs that Ian Harrison has been personally involved in.

I have also followed Justice Ian Harrison’s handiwork as a judge which includes Harrison protecting a serial rapist with a suppression order in 2017 and potentially putting more women at risk. And giving Harriet Wran a reduced sentence for her role in a murder and robbery because Harrison didn’t like the quality of the media’s reporting of her crimes.

But let’s quickly recap what the police did and didn’t do over the last 40 years investigating Lynette Dawson’s murder. There are strong grounds to demand an inquiry into why it took 40 years for Chris Dawson to be convicted of murder. I map out some of the legal failings below:

  1. On or about the 8th of January 1982 Lynnette Dawson was murdered by Chris Dawson because he wanted to continue his relationship with one of his students, who was also their babysitter, known during the trial as JC.
  2. In 1990 Chris Dawson’s second wife JC went to the NSW police with an allegation that Chris Dawson killed Lynette Dawson. JC went to the police because she was worried she would also be killed by Chris Dawson.
  3. In 1991 Chris Dawson was interviewed by the NSW police.
  4. In 2001 there was a Coronial Inquest into Lynette Dawson’s disappearance, and the Inquest recommended a known person be charged with her murder. It is not hard to work out that the “known person” was Chris Dawson.
  5. In 2003 there was a second Coronial Inquest into Lynette Dawson’s disappearance, and the Inquest again recommended a known person be charged with her murder. Again, it is not hard to work out that the “known person” was Chris Dawson.
  6. April 2018: A new police investigation started at a date unknown (although another journalist suggests it was about 2015) and in April 2018 NSW police requested that the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions review the evidence.
  7. May 2018: A Podcast called “The Teacher’s Pet” was launched by journalist Hedley Thomas at The Australian newspaper.
  8. December 2018: Chris Dawson was arrested and charged with Lynette Dawson’s murder.
  9. 30th of August 2022: Chris Dawson was found guilty of murder.

The question is why didn’t the NSW Police charge Chris Dawson in 1982 or the many other times they could have? The most obvious times they could and should have charged Chris Dawson is after the 2001 Coronial Inquest which recommended they should charge him and then after the 2003 Coronial Inquest which also recommended they should charge Chris Dawson with murder.

People on social media have suggested that Chris Dawson had friends in the NSW Police force who protected him which is the most obvious conclusion to draw based on the facts, but I haven’t seen any direct evidence of it. But as the conviction of Dawson for murder shows we do not need direct evidence if the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and, in this case, I believe it is. That is why we need a public inquiry into the failure of the NSW police, the NSW DPP and others.

The public’s opinion

Some members of the public who watched Harrison on Tuesday (30/8/22) find Chris Dawson guilty of murdering his wife Lynette on or about the 8th of January 1982 thought Harrison was great because he said he “did not accept any gender bias and gender stereotyping and will only assess Lynette Dawson as a whole person”.

Most people would have taken Justice Ian Harrison and what he said at face value as they do not know him or his background so I can understand the above comment. On the other hand, Peter Dutton is a former Qld copper, and he would know the Dawson matter has police corruption written all over it so he should be calling for an inquiry as to why it took 40 years for justice to be served but Dutton instead makes the below public statement:

Apparently, Dutton considers the murder is Dawson’s “disgusting action and his treatment of his wife”.

What I find disturbing about the above 2 comments, and there are many similar ones on social media, is most people don’t realise how corrupted our police forces and legal systems are. A corrupt judiciary should not be allowed to boost its reputation, especially in a matter which is clearly a huge police failure that likely involves police corruption.

Justice Ian Harrison stitches up journalist Shane Dowling on behalf of Kerry Stokes

The super-injunction

I first met Justice Ian Harrison in April 2014 a few days after he had issued a super-injunction (where you can’t even tell anyone there is a court case) at an ex parte hearing (I wasn’t in court as I wasn’t told about the case) against me on the instructions of Kerry Stokes in a defamation matter. The matter was named Munsie v Dowling as Stokes’ lawyer Justine Munsie also sued me. There was no legal basis for the super-injunction, and it only lasted a couple of days because I challenged it and Harrison was forced to lift it. (Click here to read the judgment)

But given there was no legal basis to the super-injunction and given that Justice Harrison ignored blatant corruption and collusion by Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie to pervert the course of justice the only inference that I say that can be drawn is that Kerry Stokes bribed Justice Ian Harrison. Stokes’ right-hand man is Bruce McWilliam who along with his wife personally knows numerous Supreme Court judges.

Kerry Stokes instituted contempt proceedings against me for breaching the super-injunction and I was fined $2000 by Acting Justice Nicholas. I never paid the fine because when a debt collector tried to make me pay I complained to the NSW Justice Department about how corrupt it was that I was fined $2000 for breaching a dodgy super-injunction that only lasted a few days and they said they would not enforce the $2000 fine. So, even the NSW Justice Department agreed with me about how corrupt the whole super-injunction matter and contempt conviction was.

Any lawyer or barrister will tell you we have open courts in Australia and for any judge to issue a super-injunction is extremely disturbing in any matter let alone a defamation case.

A few weeks later Justice Peter Hall re-instated a non-publication order for the article that was the subject of the defamation case which once again was very dodgy as the article was also published in Justice Ian Harrison’s earlier judgment which was published online and stayed online. But Stokes was trying to settle with the AFP over their raid on Channel 7 which my article related to so he wanted the article taken down so they could negotiate what I now understand was a $1 million payment from the AFP to Seven.

What was interesting and very corrupt is that Justice Ian Harrison and Justice Peter Hall ignored the fact that Justine Munsie was both an applicant in the matter and was also paid by Stokes to represent him which is confirmed on the first page of Munsie’s affidavit where she says she is writing the affidavit on behalf of Kerry Stokes which she could only do if she is Stokes’ lawyer representing him. But she can’t be a party to the matter, which she was because she was also suing me for defamation along with Kerry Stokes, and also be representing Stokes and writing his affidavit which means she colluded with Stokes to get their story straight.

On the 7th of October 2016, Justice Peter Hall at an ex parte hearing also issued a super-injunction against me in Capilano Honey v Dowling that lasted almost 2 years before it was lifted as it also had no legal basis. Of course, I ignored the super-injunction and kept on publishing about the matter even though they were threatening to charge me with contempt. Justice Hall never published written reasons and the appeal court judges checked the court file and also couldn’t find any reason why Hall issued the super-injunction. (Click here to read the Court of Appeal judgment)

For a person to have a super-injunction issued against them is almost unheard of in Australia. For a person to have 2 super-injunctions issued against them absolutely reeks of judicial corruption and reflects on the judges issuing them and even more so when they don’t even try to justify them like Justice Peter Hall didn’t.

The fact that I publish a judicial corruption website and have named and shamed about 20 NSW Supreme Court judges for being corrupt helps explain why they have corruptly issued 2 super-injunctions, dozens of non-publication orders and other standard suppression orders against me over 8 years. What also helps explain it is that Kerry Stokes bribes judges and witnesses which is consistent with Nine’s defence lawyers’ alleging witness collusion and evidence destruction etc by the applicant’s side in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation matter which Kerry Stokes is financing.

Peter Hall was the Commissioner of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) for 5 years from 2017 and retired on the 6th of August 2022 and from my experience, the NSW ICAC has always refused to investigate corruption allegations against judges even though they have the power to do so.

Harrison also sentenced me to 4 months in jail in 2017 for contempt for breaching more dodgy suppression orders on the instructions of Kerry Stokes in Seven’s Jane Doe v Dowling defamation matter paid for by Seven. I won’t get into the details to keep this article at a reasonable length (Click here and here to read the judgments) but I will point out that given the above, let alone anything else, Justice Ian Harrison should never have been anywhere near the contempt hearing as there was blatant bias and there only has to be perceived bias for a judge to recuse themselves from hearing a matter. 

Justice Ian Harrison issues a suppression order to protect a serial rapist

I published an article in 2018 titled “Serial rapist and alleged sexual predator protected with suppression orders by Justice Ian Harrison and Lucy McCallum” which starts off:

A couple of weeks ago serial rapist Graham Kay was put back behind bars for attacking a 16-year-old girl working at Woolworths. What was not reported is that last year Justice Ian Harrison issued a temporary suppression order at Graham Kay’s request banning the media from reporting on Graham Kay further. Only one question needs to be asked and that is: What the hell was a judge doing protecting a serial rapist with a suppression order and potentially putting more women at risk?

And later in the article:

The temporary suppression order was overturned by Justice Harrison after intervention by News Corp but I suspect if News Corp hadn’t intervened then the temporary suppression order would have been made permanent because that is how dodgy Justice Harrison operates.

The SMH reported:

Sadistic North Shore rapist Graham James Kay placed under supervision order

A serial rapist who preyed on women in Sydney’s northern suburbs will be subject to close supervision, including electronic monitoring, after a court found he continues to be a serious risk of further violent sexual offences.

Graham James Kay sexually assaulted eight women, aged from 16 to 39, between December 1995 and December 1996 after grabbing them from behind and holding a knife to their necks in “premeditated and planned” attacks. (Click here to read the full article)

I think Justice Ian Harrison protecting a serial rapist is important as it not only shows that he will abuse his position as a judge when he wants to but also because he came under attack by some on social media for saying Chris Dawson was previously of “good behaviour”. Harrison said that even though there was miles of evidence before the court, and which Harrison confirmed in his judgment which he read out, that Chris Dawson had groomed a student for sex who he eventually married after he killed his wife. An example of that is below:

Justice Ian Harrison said Chris Dawson was “previously of good character” knowing everything he knew about Dawson and also grooming his second wife when she was an underage schoolgirl.

But Justice Ian Harrison never said I was “previously of good character” when he stitched me up for 4 months in jail in 2017 even though my only previous conviction was for contempt where I was fined $2000 for breaching Ian Harrison’s 2014 super-injunction which Harrison knew was dodgy as hell because he issued the super-injunction when there was no legal basis to do so. 

Chris Dawson was also charged with “having a relationship with an underage girl while working as a teacher on Sydney’s northern beaches in the 1980s.” which is another way of saying he is an accused paedophile. To my knowledge that charge is still to be dealt with and we will likely hear more about that charge in the next few days. I assume that the murder charge took priority, and the paedophile charge will now be dealt with.

Even though Justice Ian Harrison found Chris Dawson guilty of murder I wonder what would have happened if there had not been so much media attention and if most of the facts had not been broadcast internationally on The Teacher’s Pet podcast.

Justice Ian Harrison gives Harriet Wran a reduced sentence

In 2016 Justice Ian Harrison gave Harriet Wran, daughter of former NSW Premier Neville Wran, a reduced sentence for robbery and accessory to murder after the fact because Harrison didn’t like the media’s reporting:

A judge has launched an extraordinary tirade on media coverage of Harriet Wran saying intense focus, including on her family background and appearance, was disproportionate to the crime she committed. In sentencing Wran on Tuesday, Justice Ian Harrison was scathing about the “humiliating” media attention Wran had received particularly in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.

Justice Harrison took the “sustained and unpleasant campaign” against Ms Wran into consideration when handing down a minimum two-year jail sentence on Tuesday. Wran, the daughter of former NSW premier Neville Wran, will now walk free within a matter of weeks with time served after being convicted of robbery in company and accessory after the fact to murder. (Click here to read more)

Giving someone convicted of such a serious crime as “accessory after the fact to murder” a reduced sentence because the media weren’t nice is a scandal. I have no doubt favours were called in for that sentence and money likely changed hands. 

Will Justice Ian Harrison will take into account the media’s reporting on Chris Dawson’s murder trial when he sentences him as he did with Harriet Wran?

Justice Ian Harrison is no friend of the average person seeking justice, and I can say that as I have been before him myself and I have watched what he has done in other court cases as reported above.

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.

Follow Kangaroo Court of Australia via email. Enter your email address below and click on the follow button.

8 replies »

  1. I totally agree…Judiciary are not doing the job their getting paid to do according to the constitution and the Rule of Law.

  2. KCA, your website’s slogan says it all. Your willingness to tell the truth deserves to be spread throughout this corrupted land.

  3. I thought the verdict was unsustainable as it relied totally on the interpretation of circumstantial evidence.
    You need a higher standard of proof to convict a corrupt solicitor.
    The judge did the job the mob expected of him.

  4. Mostly, circumstantial evidence is all there is when investigating a “smart” psychopath. Harrison had no choice but to finally convict given the strength of the circumstantial evidence. Hopefully justice is eventually served, even by dodgy judges when they have no choice.

  5. Though, when it comes to the calibre and lack of integrity of the Judiciary in Australia, anything is possible, in short the High Court decreed that juries can’t trusted to get it right, High Court overruled Vic Court of Appeal on the matter, now the same accused has been accused of similar matters as previous.

  6. When a judge is corrupt or biased, he/she writes poor-quality Reasons For Judgment. The reasons would fail to provide an intelligible explanation of process of reasoning that has led the judge from the evidence to the findings and the finds to the ultimate conclusion. The judge often would fail to state the facts clearly and accurately; would fail to identify and resolve the relevant issues; would fail to deal with important evidence and contentions; would fail to exercise judicial discretion in accordance with legal constraints. The judge would, however, make unjustifiable statements in the judgment to fool the uninformed readers.

  7. Whether you agree with the verdict or not delivered by Justice Harrison, there is no dispute that Chris Dawson took advantage of a vulnerable 16 year old girl with family problems who was his student at Cromer High. He was having an ongoing sexual relationship with her at the time his wife disappeared. Dawson has been charged with carnal knowledge. There was a power imbalance in his relationship with the young girl. This charge is still to proceed to a hearing unless Dawson pleads guilty. The trial has been delayed a further nine months and is likely to be in May 2023. He could get an 8 year sentence if found guilty. The evidence of this former student is damning as to their sexual relationship.

    This sex charge trial will probably be delayed even further if Dawson is granted an Appeal. We will have to wait until his sentencing hearing on 11 November for the murder before we know about the Appeal and then about the carnal knowledge trial.

Leave a Reply to Enough of the liesCancel reply