Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus

Who bribed Justice Robert Beech-Jones for a suppressed defamation judgment? Was it Kerry Stokes or Seven or Capilano Honey or someone else?

Justice Robert Beech-Jones published a judgment below that says little more than “Decision restricted [2022] NSWSC 406” which is a breach of common law that says judges have to publish written reasons for their judgments.

There are a few clues in the “Catchwords” section which says “DEFAMATION – defamation and injurious falsehood – final injunction – suppression order – ex parte hearing – orders made – no question of principle”. But that is it, no more details.

No applicant’s name and no respondent’s name. If fact, there is no evidence that the respondent even knew about the case as the hearing was an “ex parte” (secret) hearing which means the respondent wasn’t even in court. The judgment is published in full below:

Decision restricted [2022] NSWSC 406 (Click here to see the judgment on the NSW Caselaw website)

Justice Robert Beech-Jones defamation judgment

The judgment says it was a defamation and injurious falsehood case. Injurious falsehood is in effect a backdoor way a company can sue for defamation. In 2016 Capilano Honey sued me for injurious falsehood and their CEO Ben McKee sued me for defamation.

Robert Beech-Jones

Robert Beech-Jones

Without more detail, I would assume that the “Decision restricted [2022] NSWSC 406” judgment was similar to Capilano and Ben McKee’s case against me in that it was a company suing someone for injurious falsehood and an owner/director suing the same person for defamation in the same matter.

Who knows, it could have been Capilano or Kerry Stokes or Seven West Media suing me again and getting orders against me which I don’t know about. Or maybe it was Capilano or Kerry Stokes or Seven West Media suing someone else which they do regularly.

In the video below I expand on this article:

In 2017 Justice Robert Beach-Jones issued suppression orders and non-publication orders against me in a contempt of court matter and he did it at an ex parte (secret) hearing as well. The suppression orders and non-publication orders had no legal basis and they were eventually lifted. (Click here to read more)

So, Justice Robert Beach-Jones does not have a good record for issuing legally justified suppression orders which casts even more doubt about the legality of the suppressed “Decision restricted [2022] NSWSC 406” judgment.

In 2019 Justice Robert Beach-Jones published another judgment that was totally suppressed which has no details as per below. It doesn’t even have catchwords.

Here are a few other recently suppressed judgments:

Decision restricted [2022] NSWSC 1553 – 09 November 2022 – Common Law – Criminal – Justice Anthony Payne (Click here to see)

Decision restricted [2022] NSWSC 1404 – 19 October 2022 – Equity – Justice Patricia Henry (Click here to see)

Decision restricted [2022] NSWSC 1486 – 01 November 2022 – Equity – Justice Patricia Henry (Click here to see)

What is meant to keep judges and courts accountable is published judgments and open courts. But open courts are a waste of time if judgments are suppressed.

The federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has said the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will almost entirely have secret hearings, will be accountable because it will publish its findings. But there’s nothing to stop the NACC from publishing judgments like the ones above.

Suppressed judgments should be extremely rare and I cannot think of a case that would justify the why the matters above are suppressed with no details. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the judges have been bribed for a dishonest judgment and dodgy court orders.

The contempt most Australian judges have for the law in many cases far outweighs their knowledge of the law.

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.

7 replies »

  1. Justice Robert Beach-Jones deserves to be impeached.

    On a related matter, The Family Court claims “judges and courts are accountable due to published judgments and open courts”. However, you can’t write about them in the newspapers and therefore reporters don’t bother attending the trials.

    Mark Dreyfus needs to re-write the rules!

  2. I have been before RBJ as both an adversarial litigant, when he was but a mere barrister, which I won by the way, convincingly so, and again as an applicant in separate proceedings (Court of Criminal Appeal in which he sat as one of three judges), in respect of which the latter, I applied to have him disqualified given the nature of our historic adversity, indeed his inexplicable animosite rage directed squarely at me had been extraordinary. Notwithstanding, he dismissed my application. Not surprisingly, I lost that case. From my own humble observations, RBJ appears to display the hallmarks of a bitter and resentful man in the manifestations of a narcissist. Sadly, he is not Robinson Crusoe of the desert island that is our Judiciary, but he does come across as a particularly weird dude.

  3. Apologists for bad judicial behaviour serve up meaningless platitudes when challenged.
    They are an arrogant, defensive, disingenuous, egregious and pompous bunch.
    The system needs a complete overhaul.

Leave a Reply