Senator Linda Reynolds

Senator Linda Reynolds sends a legal threat to the publisher of the Kangaroo Court of Australia media

Senator Linda Reynolds has sent me a legal threat from her lawyers, as per below, after I emailed them some questions regarding false evidence that Linda Reynolds has admitted giving under oath in the rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann in the ACT Supreme Court.

I published an article on Sunday the 20th of August 2023 titled “Did Senator Linda Reynolds’ perjury in the Bruce Lehrmann trial cost Brittany Higgins justice?” which covers Linda Reynolds recent admission she gave false evidence under oath. (Click here to read)

I then sent the below email on Monday night, the 21st of August, to Linda Reynolds lawyers as it seems to be the only way Senator Reynolds will respond to media questions.

Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 11:05 PM
Subject: Perjury by Senator Linda Reynolds in the Bruce Lehrmann rape trial

Dear Martin Bennett

Re: Your client Senator Linda Reynolds

I have published an article titled “Did Senator Linda Reynolds’ perjury in the Bruce Lehrmann trial cost Brittany Higgins justice?” on my website  here: and I have a few questions for a follow up article and/or video.

Given Linda Reynolds has now admitted, in a News Corp article published on the15/8/23 and which quotes you Mr Bennett, being advised before the 1st of April 2019 meeting with Brittany Higgins that Brittany Higgins had complained that Bruce Lehrmann had been on top of her on the morning of the 23rd of March 2019 in Linda Reynolds office can you answer the following questions.

  1. Linda Reynolds gave evidence under oath during the 2022 Bruce Lehrmann trial that she had no knowledge about Bruce Lehrmann being on top of Brittany Higgins before the 1st of April 2019 meeting so can you advise when Linda Reynolds became aware that she had given false evidence to the ACT Supreme Court?
  2. Why did Linda Reynolds wait until Tuesday the 15th of August 2023 to correct the record via News Corp?
  3. Given Linda Reynolds has admitted perjuring herself in the ACT Supreme Court, about what she knew about the alleged rape before the 1st of April 2019 meeting, will she also correct the record of what she was told/discussed at the 1st of April 2019 meeting?
  4. Does Linda Reynolds still deny Brittany Higgins “told Senator Reynolds that Mr Lehrmann had sexually assaulted her” at the 1st of April 2019 meeting as highlighted by Walter Sofronoff at Page 132, paragraph 571 of the ACT Inquiry Report?
  5. Does Linda Reynolds still stand by her evidence under oath at the ACT Supreme Court “that Ms Higgins did not reveal that anything sexual had happened between herself and Mr Lehrmann” at the 1st of April 2019 meeting as highlighted by Walter Sofronoff at Page 132, paragraph 571 of the ACT Inquiry Report?
  6. Has Linda Reynolds also misled the Federal Parliament / Australian Senate on the issue of what she knew and when about the alleged rape?
  7. If Linda Reynolds has also misled the Federal Parliament / Australian Senate about the alleged rape, has she corrected the record with the Parliament / Australian Senate?
  8. Can you explain why Senator Linda Reynolds is only answering questions about the matter via her lawyer, as per last week’s News Corp article, given the court case was finalised in 2022?
  9. Can you confirm who is paying for Linda Reynolds legal bills to respond to the media for this matter?

Please respond by 5pm Tuesday the 22nd of August 2023 in case I have further questions and so I can publish.


Shane Dowling

End of email

On Wednesday the 23rd of August at 2:15pm I received an email from Linda Reynolds lawyers with the below attached letter:

Letter to Mr Shane Dowling, Kangaroo Court of Australia dated 23 August 2023

Below is the picture used in the article Linda Reynolds has complained about:

Linda Reynolds perjury

Observations regarding the above legal letter

The public should be asking why is Senator Linda Reynolds only communicating with the media via her lawyers? That by itself is a scandal.

Senator Linda Reynold’s lawyer Martin Bennett fails to address any of the 9 questions I asked in my email to him which points to someone with plenty to hide.

The legal letter’s response above only complains about the first alleged perjury and addresses that by referring to the News Corp article that I quoted in my article. As I outline in the article, the first alleged perjury was published on Twitter by Glen Schaefer and then an hour later News Corp published an explanation for Linda Reynolds false evidence by quoting from her lawyers response.

But the letter from lawyer Martin Bennett above does not address the second allegation of perjury I outlined in my article when I said “The only reasonable conclusion is that Senator Linda Reynolds was also lying under oath regarding this issue as well which is a second perjury offence.”

The bottom line is Linda Reynold’s lawyer doesn’t address the 9 questions I asked in my email, he doesn’t address the second count of perjury at all and he says “Any further publication is at your peril”.

What should worry the public is we have a Senator who has been up to her neck in covering up an alleged rape in parliament house and she is now suing anyone and everyone to try and conceal it.

Linda Reynolds is suing Brittany Higgins for defamation and in a separate proceeding Reynolds is suing Higgins’ partner David Sharaz for defamation which is set for hearing in May 2024. Reynolds also settled a defamation case in April 2023 against “journalist Aaron Patrick and publisher HarperCollins over a book that the former minister alleged made defamatory statements about her response to Brittany Higgins’ allegations of rape.”

Update 24-8-23: I have published the below video on YouTube with an overview of the matter:

(Click here to watch the above video on YouTube)

I spent 8 years defending myself against Kerry Stokes and his SLAPP lawsuits so a weak letter from some nickel and dime lawyer doesn’t concern me. But what it shows is how disgusting Australian politics has become because now Linda Reynolds is using SLAPP lawsuits to silence the public and media and maybe that will last years as well.

So, if Senator Reynolds wants to take it to court, I’ll stand and fight and we’ll help shine a light on the truth.

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.

24 replies »

  1. Well done KCA not only shows what a grub Reynolds is but also shows Bennett to be a goose also and shows how some of these gruby lawyers will do anything for lying politicians . Bennett holds no credibility with me and wouldn’t believe anything that comes from his mouth same as Reynolds. Once again shows how bad our government represents honest Australians

  2. As someone who has received multiple threats from lawyers when exposing criminals I concur with Kangaroo Court that the legal threats are an attempt by people with money or in a position of power to attempt to stop the truth being exposed.
    The threats will not work against Kangaroo Court.
    Lawyers, one of the most corrupt professions.

  3. “at your peril” please explain, is that some sort of legal terminology or otherwise, not being a legal person, could only assume this is the sort of language I’ve heard in the local public hotel bar.. can anyone advise?

      • This bucket of lard has the audacity to deny a decent, albeit naive, young lady the natural justice she so richly deserves, why, to protect some of the most corrupt politicians this country has ever seen!

  4. I totally agree with Brian that lawyers are a corrupt profession.
    They obfuscate and twist the truth for bucket loads of money.
    They are parasites who are enabled by an arrogant and out of touch judiciary.
    Judges and lawyers should be prosecuted for racketeering.

  5. Another overpaid bloated politician, throwing taxpayers dollars around because it doesn’t like what someone published about it, we all better make use of the fact that stating FACTS is still LEGAL as we move closer to the dictatorship tyrannical so called powers ACMA want to have passed removing all our rights as citizens to exercise our freedom of speech, freedom of press, in other words making it illegal to tell the truth, this sort of totalitarian behavior is typical seeing Australia is run by a ZOG

  6. The Lib/Nat party are notorious for lying to the Australian people, this report by you KCA, is not defamatory by any means with the Lib/Nat party trying to prove otherwise… Is a no-brainier.
    Thank you for being the sharply alert & well-connected person that you have proven yourself to be.

    • I’m just going to assume “at your peril” is a physical threat rather than a legal one.

      Don’t think I’ve seen it before put like this, although there is “do not fail at your peril”, or something like that. I suppose the young’un writing this could have messed up, but that wouldn’t instill confidence in escalating the matter.

      Like everything with Reynolds, it’s Liar’s Amateur Hour.

  7. Having been the recipient of many a lawyer threat (which went nowhere), I can only suggest bundling the whole of correspondence and forwarding same to the Legal Services Commissioner of Western Australia and see what results. Even though close to a thousand solicitors and barristers have been disbarred, fined or censured over the past two decades by the LSCs, I don`t know what standards they apply to threats.

  8. Well done with the succinct email, no dodging the questions …unless an implied threat is generated in the hope you will cower, Bloody good work young bloke, I guess @Lindareynoldslyingcow is using tax payer dollars again. Another abuse of privilege.

  9. Bravo
    You’re a legend Shane/KCA.
    I myself know little about legalities but one thing I’m certain of is when you’re brave enough to continuely expose our corrupt politicians, you would know exactly what your legal rights are & are very cautious at ensuring you are within the letter of the law.
    Politicians throwing around tax payers money suing everyone who upsets them is an outrage
    -how can we as the public demand to know who’s paying her legal fees? If she’s using tax payers money for frivolous law suits & to intimidate journalists who dare tell the truth, we as tax payers deserve to know.
    Keep at it KCA,
    You’ll be hailed as one of the fearless truth-tellers of our time.

  10. History kinda repeated with Reynolds.
    The last military guys to be Defence Ministers until the Reynolds fiasco perished in the 1940 Canberra Air Disaster, the Menzies UAP Government fell over soon after, but Reynolds brought the Morrison Coalition Government down all on her own

  11. “at your peril” (Underlined)

    IMHO, and to my way of thinking, that is technically, a definite THREAT.

    The email DOES INDEED NOT go on to outline the nature of the threat.
    In the realm of ALL possibilities, one could take it as a direct and personal threat upon your physical being, Shane. The letter is after all, addressed to YOU personally.

    A call to police, just to give them “the heads up”, would IMHO be totally in order. Also, puts it on record.

    IMHO, I would have thought that Martin Bennett would have more sense. This is HIS supposed chosen profession. For me, the email reeked of a “fight behind the dunnies after school”, back in primary school days. So very very childish.

    On the other side of the more serious nature of this email. There was NOT any attempt to provide any information whatsoever, as to the legitimate questions presented.

    YES, they are indeed RATTLED.


  12. It seems Shane Dowling has been mentioned in the mainstream media. Here is a quotation from today’s article in the Melbourne Herald Sun entitled “Senator Linda Reynolds’ early win in defamation case against David Sharaz, Brittany Higgins’ fiance”:

    “In a hearing for the security for costs order, held in the same court on Thursday, Mr Sharaz’s lawyer Jason MacLaurin argued Senator Reynolds could be made “financially uncomfortable” by her other defamation suit, and potential future suits that could be brought against Federal Minister Tanya Plibersek and fringe political commentator Shane Dowling.”

  13. ‘In his decision on Friday, Justice Solomon noted while Senator Reynolds is financially comfortable, the costs of the lawsuit would be “very significant, perhaps crippling,” – but that this is “hardly a unique feature of this proceeding.”’
    So, why shouldn’t Reynolds have to put up a deposit?
    This is looking like Lawfare, with Reynolds acting as a proxy for interests with very deep pockets.

Leave a Reply