Lachlan Murdoch has openly and publicly bribed Justice Michael Lee to protect the Liberal Party in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation judgment which became obvious when Justice Lee attended News Corp’s celebration of The Australian’s 60th birthday last Thursday (25/7/24).

Yes, that’s the same News Corp that has been attacking Brittany Higgins, since she went public in February 2021 with being raped at parliament house, while at the same time defending Bruce Lehrmann and all the Liberal Party players who were involved in the cover-up such as Senator Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown.

And yes, that is the same News Corp who bribed former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff to illegally leak the ACT Inquiry Report to News Corp propagandist Janet Albrechtsen.

I wrote in August 2023:

A lot of people are asking what motivated Walter Sofronoff, a former judge and Solicitor-General of Queensland, to put his career and liberty at risk by breaking the law with his leaking of the ACT Inquiry Report to Murdoch’s Janet Albrechtsen.

Below we will see the evidence showing some of the benefits that Walter Sofronoff was planning on receiving and they are linked to News Corp. But firstly, it’s worth noting this is not the first time this exact scam has happened.

Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow previously illegally leaked court documents to Janet Albrechtsen to embarrass Brittany Higgins and Shane Drumgold which benefited Bruce Lehrmann. Steve Whybrow’s payoff was free promotion, for his barrister services, via written and video interviews with Janet Albrechtsen published on The Australian’s website and YouTube channel. (Click here to read more)

And yes, the same News Corp propagandist Janet Albrechtsen who “Walter Sofronoff’s subpoenaed mobile phone records show he made 55 phone calls for a total of 7 ½ hours to Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian, mostly with Janet Albrechtsen, in their collusion to protect the Liberal Party’s cover-up of Bruce Lehrmann’s rape of Brittany Higgins.” (Click here to read more)

And yes, the same News Corp propagandist Janet Albrechtsen whose relationship with Walter Sofronoff has instigated a criminal investigation, which is still afoot, into Walter Sofronoff for him leaking the ACT Inquiry Report to Albrechtsen. (Click here to read more)

And yes, the same News Corp propagandist Janet Albrechtsen who met with Senator Linda Reynolds, who is suing Brittany Higgins, and Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow in Perth 2 days after Justice Lee published his judgment. Steve Whybrow was in Perth to talk at a conference organised by The Institute of Public Affairs. (Click here to read more)

Janet Albrechtsen is the chairman of the The Institute of Public Affairs who I assume paid for Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow to travel to Perth and give a talk at the IPA organised conference.

And finally, yes, that is the same News Corp that has been using Justice Michael Lee’s judgment in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case to attack Brittany Higgins since Justice Lee published his judgment on the 15th of April 2024. (Click here to read: “Lehrmann-v-Network-Ten-Pty-Limited-Trial-Judgment-2024-FCA-369”)

The bottom line is Justice Michael Lee heard Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson and Lehrmann lost because Justice Lee found that Lehrmann had raped Brittany Higgins.

Justice Lee found both Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins were unreliable witnesses but on the central point of rape he found Brittany was a believable witness.

But Justice Lee was also critical of Brittany Higgins’ claims of a political cover-up by the Liberal Party and Justice Lee defended the conduct of former Liberal staffer Fiona Brown and Senator Linda Reynolds.

The problem is 95% of the evidence of the cover-up was not before Justice Lee as he only dealt with the evidence reported in the February 2021 interviews Brittany Higgins did with Channel 10’s The Project TV show.

The vast majority of the evidence of the cover-up came to light after the interview which Justice Lee never considered, and which means he was never in a position to make an informed decision of whether or not there was a cover-up.

Justice Lee should have made it clear in his judgment that he was only giving an opinion on whether there was a cover-up based on the very limited evidence before him which he failed to do. Justice Lee’s failure to make that clear could be argued is evidence of perceived bias, if not real bias, against Brittany Higgins, Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson.

Then a couple of months after the judgment Justice Michael Lee shows up to News Corp’s celebration of The Australian’s 60th birthday where a lot of the beneficiaries, of Lee’s defence of the Liberal Party in his judgment, were in attendance.

Benefit to Justice Michael Lee of going to News Corp’s celebration of The Australian’s 60th birthday? A lot of judges, when they retire, go back to being barristers so maybe Justice Lee thought it was a great networking opportunity for his future financial benefit. Or maybe Lee just wanted a free feed.

Also, once you are in the Murdoch’s tent they look after you but no need to speculate because I sent Justice Lee some questions as per below and let’s see what he has to say.

The below is a screenshot of the heading for an article in The Australian attacking Brittany Higgins on the 22nd of July 2024 which I understand was written by Janet Albrechtsen but it’s behind a paywall: (Click here to see source on Twitter)

Below is front page of The Australian on the 8th of July 2024 attacking Brittany Higgins. There is a small picture of Janet Albrechtsen at the bottom in the middle of the page also attacking Brittany Higgins.

Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch regard the Liberal Party as News Corp’s political arm, to use for their financial benefit, and they use their propagandists such as Janet Albrechtsen to attack anyone and everyone who are a threat to the Liberal Party’s election prospects.

Below is Justice Michael Lee attending The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration at the Australian Museum in Sydney’s Darlinghurst on Thursday the 25th of July 2024. Justice Lee has the look of a guilty person being caught red-handed as he also does in the second picture below. ( Photo by James Brickwood for the SMH) (Click here to read more)

The Daily Mail also published a photo of Justice Michael Lee attending The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration at the Australian Museum in Sydney’s Darlinghurst on Thursday the 25th of July 2024. (Click here to read more)

As you can see with both photos above Justice Lee is very uncomfortable with having his photos taken because he knows he is potentially in a lot of trouble just like Walter Sofronoff.

Liberal players who have used Justice Michael Lee’s judgment to defend the Liberal Party or themselves

Senator Linda Reynolds responded to Justice Michael Lee’s judgment on the 17th of April 2024 with the ABC reporting:

“For 3 years I have endured intense public scrutiny, vilification, vile trolling and have been demonised as the villain in a story of a political cover-up I have always known to be untrue,” she said.

“The decision of his Honour Justice Lee has finally set the record straight with respect to the conduct of Ms Brown and myself and the demonstrably false narrative that has dominated headlines and ruined lives and careers. (Click here to read more)

Linda Reynolds also issued a statement on the 21st of April claiming she had been vindicated by Justice Lee’s judgment. (Click here to read Linda Reynolds’ statement) Linda Reynolds made no mention of her meetings with and leaking documents to Janet Albrechtsen.

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who was up to his neck in the cover-up, used an interview with Seven to claim Justice Michael Lee found their was no cover-up which Morrison implied cleared him of his role in the cover-up. (Click here to see the interview)

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is quoted by the ABC as saying Senator Linda Reynolds had “absolutely been vindicated” after having her reputation “besmirched”. (Click here to read more) Peter Dutton was also at The Australian’s 60th birthday so maybe he had a chat to Justice Michael Lee and thanked him personally.

What would the average person think about the public statements of Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton and Linda Reynolds above using Justice Lee’s judgment as vindication if they knew Justice Lee was in News Corp’s hip pocket.

Below is the email I sent to Justice Michael Lee:

From: SHANE DOWLING
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 10:38 AM
To: nswreg@fedcourt.gov.au; media-FCA@fedcourt.gov.au
Subject: Attn: Justice Michael Lee – Media questions – perceived bias and bribery allegations

Dear Justice Michael Lee – Federal Court of Australia – Sydney

I have some questions for an article I will publish that currently has the working title “Lachlan Murdoch bribed Justice Michael Lee in the Bruce Lehrmann matter”.

The background to the questions:

The SMH published a picture of you, Justice Michael Lee, on the 25th of July 2024 attending “The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration at the Australian Museum in Sydney’s Darlinghurst” hosted by Lachlan Murdoch. (Click here to see the article)

Your attendance at “The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration” raises a lot of questions and has possible consequences for court cases that are currently afoot such as Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal of your judgement in the matter NSD103/2023: Bruce Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited ACN 052 515 250 & Anor.

Your attendance at “The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration” could also have major consequences for Senator Linda Reynolds defamation case against Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz in the Supreme Court of Western Australia which is due to start on Friday the 2nd of August 2024.

I am sure your Honor is aware of the High Court of Australia precedent “Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63” which says: The test for perceived bias is whether “a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”.

Or maybe have a look at my favourite precedent for judicial bias: R. v Magistrates’ Court at Lilydale; Ex parte Ciccone [1973] VR 122 (a case in which a magistrate had travelled to a view in the same car as counsel for one only of the parties)

Your attendance casts a dark shadow over the integrity and reputation of the Federal Court of Australia given Rupert Murdoch’s and Lachlan Murdoch’s years of attacks against Brittany Higgins and her supporters via The Australian and their other media assets such as Sky News, The Daily Telegraph in Sydney and The Herald Sun in Melbourne.

And your attendance also casts a dark shadow over the integrity and reputation of the Federal Court of Australia given that many regard the Liberal Party as the political arm of News Corp and given you defended the Liberal Party, and their associated politicians, against allegations by Brittany Higgins of a political cover-up in your judgment in the Lehrmann v Channel 10 matter.

The questions:

1. Given The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function was meant to be in February 2024 were you invited to that function? If so when and who by?
2. When were you invited to The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function that you attended on Thursday the 25th of July 2024?
3. Who invited you to The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function that you attended on Thursday the 25th of July 2024?
4. Did you disclose to the parties in the Bruce Lehrmann v Channel 10 defamation case that you had been invited to The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function? If not, why not?
5. Why did you attend The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function given you would have known it could be used as perceived bias by the parties involved in Bruce Lehrman’s appeal of your judgment?
6. Why did you attend The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function given you would have known it could be used as perceived bias by the parties involved in Senator Linda Reynolds defamation case against Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz?
7. What communication and /or dealings have you had with Rupert Murdoch and/or Lachlan Murdoch?
8. Have you ever met or communicated with Janet Albrechtsen?
9. Who did you talk to at The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function? E.g Janet Albrechtsen, Peter Dutton, Lachlan Murdoch etc.
10. Who did you discuss the Bruce Lehrmann v Channel 10 matter with at The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function?
11. What was the benefit you received for attending The Australian newspaper’s 60th birthday celebration function given you obviously felt there was some benefit for you to put 2 court cases at risk?

Please respond by 5pm today, Wednesday the 31st of July 2024, in case I have further questions and so I can publish.

Regards

Shane Dowling

At the time of publishing this article I have not received a response. If I do receive a response I will update this article and maybe publish another article.

Perceived bias if not real bias

In a court of law, you don’t have to prove real bias, you only have to prove “perceived bias” and the judge is in a lot of trouble and has no choice but to recuse themselves from the case.

If you find out later that there was perceived bias by the judge, then it becomes grounds for an appeal and Justice Lee knows that and that is why he has a guilty look in the 2 pictures of him attending The Australian’s 60th birthday last Thursday (25/7/24).

In an environment where there is documented evidence of politicians and police lying and deceiving about the rape and its cover-up. And where News Corp and other media are attacking Brittany Higgins 24 by 7. And where Justice Lee, rightly or wrongly, attacked Brittany Higgins in his judgment knowing that would fuel attacks on Brittany Higgins. Then Justice Michael Lee thought he could get away with slinking into News Corp’s function for his own benefit. 

One of the questions Justice Lee won’t answer in the above email, which is worth repeating, is when was Justice Lee invited by Lachlan Murdoch to the News Corp function. Was it before or after he handed down his judgement in the Lehrmann matter in April 2024.

Justice Michael Lee attending News Corp’s celebration of The Australian’s 60th birthday potentially has consequences for court cases that are currently afoot such as Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal in his defamation case and Senator Linda Reynolds defamation case against Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz which is due to start on Friday (2/8/24).

Potential issues for Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal and Senator Linda Reynolds defamation case

Bruce Lehrmann is appealing Justice Lee’s judgment and he is highly unlikely to challenge the decision on perceived bias grounds. But Lisa Wilkinson and Channel 10 are also challenging parts of Justice Lee’s findings and could possibly use perceived bias as a ground given Justice Lee’s criticism of Lisa Wilkinson and Channel 10.

And Senator Linda Reynolds’ defamation case against Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz is due to start on Friday (2/8/24) in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

Senator Reynolds has said in a public statement that she intends proving there was no cover-up by her or the Liberal Party at the defamation trial so she might use Justice Michael Lee’s criticism of Brittany Higgins as part of her evidence.

If that was to happen Brittany Higgins’ lawyers could argue perceived bias by Justice Lee given Lee’s social outing with many of Brittany Higgins attackers at News Corp’s function for The Australian’s 60th birthday.

Justice Michael Lee would have known his attendance at News Corp’s function for The Australian’s 60th birthday could potentially be raised at Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal and at Senator Linda Reynolds’ defamation case, but he still went anyhow.

Maybe Justice Michael Lee did a costs / benefit analysis and decided any potential cost of going to News Corp’s function would be outweighed by the potential benefits for himself.

Justice Michael Lee’s judgment – Biased comments or perceived biased comments

Justice Lee was well aware of what the court case and his judgment could do to the reputations of people involved or associated with the court case.

For example, Justice Lee made a deliberate decision to defend Seven’s external lawyer Richard Keegan from Addisons Lawyers, who was not personally a party to the matter, even though Seven had been caught red-handed breaching a subpoena by withholding documents.

While at the same time Justice Lee was defending Richard Keegan to protect his reputation Lee also attacked Brittany Higgins’ credibility knowing full well it would lead to more attacks against her by the Liberal Party, News Corp, Channel 7 and on social media.

Justice Michael Lee obviously felt there was some benefit for him to take the risky chance of accepting Lachlan Murdoch’s invitation of going to News Corp’s celebration. So, it’s not for anyone else to argue there was no benefit for Justice Lee.

If Justice Michael Lee had found there was a political cover-up by the Liberal Party of the rape of Brittany Higgins would Lachlan Murdoch and News Corp still have invited Justice Lee to the celebration of The Australian’s 60th birthday last Thursday (25/7/24)? Of course not.

So, that in itself says Justice Lee’s invite was a reward from Lachlan Murdoch and News Corp for Justice Lee’s judgment in the Bruce Lehrmann v Channel 10 matter. 

Both Lachlan Murdoch and Justice Michael Lee could sue me for defamation, but the problem is they both left their hats in the Lion’s den and they both know it would be a major mistake to go back to collect their hats. If you have any doubt have another look at Justice Michael Lee’s face in the above photos as it’s the face of a guilty man with plenty to hide.

This article could be a mile long if I addressed every issue, so I will finish at this point but maybe later I will do an extended version.

Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate 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.

For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here

Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.