Kerry Stokes, Ben Roberts-Smith and Ryan StokesChannel 7

Kerry Stokes and Channel 7 spend over $50 million to protect some of Australia’s vilest criminals

Kerry Stokes and Channel 7 have used a war of law and their media to protect some of the vilest criminals in Australia such as war criminal and murderer Ben Roberts-Smith, rapist Bruce Lehrmann and convicted child abuser former My Kitchen Rules star Claudean Uamaki-Mu.

Ben Roberts-Smith lost his defamation appeal on Friday (16/5/25) and claims he will appeal to the High Court of Australia which I will deal with in a minute. But firstly, lets look at Kerry Stokes’ MKR cover-up.

Kerry Stokes’ and Channel 7’s MKR cover-up

Former My Kitchen Rules star Claudean Uamaki-Mu and her partner Anthony Mu were originally facing more serious charges, which included the rape of a child, and they had their names suppressed in September 2023.

Lawyers for Claudean Uamaki-Mu even sent me a copy of the suppression orders which I published in an article

It is widely believed that Kerry Stokes’ Channel 7 paid for lawyers for Claudean Uamaki-Mu and Anthony Mu to obtain the suppression orders as Stokes and Seven were worried about the fallout and it’s impact on their My Kitchen Rules television show.

The suppression orders were lifted on the 30th of April 2025 after Claudean Uamaki-Mu “pleaded guilty to kicking, spitting on and hitting children.”

Kerry Stokes’ Channel 7 paying for lawyers for the suppression orders to protect Seven and MKR seems to be supported by Claudean Uamaki-Mu saying “she didn’t ever want her name suppressed after being charged.” 

While Claudean Uamaki-Mu and her partner Anthony Mu still face further charges, numerous charges have been dropped. News.com reported on 1/5/25:

Uamaki-Mu is still due to stand trial in the District Court on 12 charges, including unlawful assault occasioning actual bodily harm, indecent treatment and rape, following a committal hearing in January.

Mu is also due to stand trial in the Magistrates Court on a later date.

He is facing eight counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (two while in company), two counts of common assault and one count of observations in breach of privacy. (Click here to read more)

Seven West Media shareholders should be asking what Kerry Stokes and Channel 7 are doing paying for lawyers to conceal from the public child abuse crimes by Claudean Uamaki-Mu and assault crimes by Anthony Mu. 

Ben Roberts-Smith failed defamation appeal

Kerry Stokes has financed, and controls, Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation case and is up for an estimated $30 to $35 million costs for the original hearing and another $5 million or so for the appeal.

The court published a summary on Friday as per below. They are yet to publish the full judgement likely because the government has to approve it because of some of the evidence given included classified information.

Below is the courts summary, Ben Roberts-Smith media release and then I will comment.

BRS Summary page 1

BRS Summary page 2

I also published a short video just after the judgement was handed down on Friday on the KCA YouTube channel which you can watch by clicking here.

Below is Ben Roberts-Smith’s media statement after the Federal Court of Australia’s judgment:

Ben Roberts-Smith media release

I watched the appeal in February 2024 and I published an article at the time titled “War criminal Ben Roberts-Smith thrown under a bus by Kerry Stokes and his own barrister Bret Walker SC” which starts off: 

Ben Roberts-Smith’s barrister Bret Walker SC is arguing in the Federal Court of Australia that the 3 judges hearing the appeal should ignore Roberts-Smith’s perjury, witness collusion, intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence etc and the judges should focus on the SMH’s witnesses’ because of “discrepancies and differences” in their evidence.

Bret Walker SC should win an Academy Award for having the audacity to run such an argument in court while keeping a straight face.

It’s a failed strategy that Kerry Stokes, who is paying Roberts-Smith’s legal fees, used in the infamous C7 case he lost in 2009 and Kerry Stokes would know that Roberts-Smith’s chances of winning the appeal are Buckley’s or none.

But let’s look at the Ben Roberts-Smith appeal first and then look the similarities with Kerry Stokes C7 case.

and:

Roberts-Smith’s barrister Brett Walker SC said they are not challenging the fact that the trial judge Justice Besanko found that Roberts-Smith and his witnesses gave false evidence. (Click here to read the article)

The Court of Appeal also pointed out that Ben Roberts-Smith’s lawyers did not challenge “the adverse credit findings” made by the original judge against Roberts-Smith and his witnesses which means the court has to take them as being true and correct.

Ben Roberts-Smith and the High Court 

Ben Roberts-Smith says he will appeal to the High Court of Australia and some people point to George Pell winning in the High Court to suggest Roberts-Smith might have a chance. 

The big difference is that George Pell did not give evidence in his own defence and Roberts-Smith did give evidence that was trashed by the judge as not being credible.

And because at the appeal Roberts-Smith’s lawyers didn’t challenge the “the adverse credit findings” made against Roberts-Smith and his witnesses he won’t be able to challenge the “the adverse credit findings” at the High Court of Australia.

So, Ben Roberts-Smith has no chance of winning in the High Court of Australia.

Bruce Lehrmann – Parliament House rapist

Kerry Stokes and Channel 7 supported and paid Bruce Lehrmann. Stokes and Seven also interfered in his defamation case trying to conceal his rape of Brittany Higgins.

I’ve written numerous articles on the issue as per below which tells the story:

On the 4th of April 2024 I published an article titled, “Kerry Stokes’ Channel 7 deleted evidence of their crimes in the Bruce Lehrmann matter after 7’s lawyers intervened”. (Click here to read the article)

On the 24th of March 2024 I published an article titled, “Channel Seven paid $1000’s for prostitutes for Bruce Lehrmann approved by owner Kerry Stokes”. (Click here to read the article)

On the 17th of December 2023 I published an article titled, “Bruce Lehrmann attempts a $12 million shakedown from Australian taxpayers with the help of his puppet master Kerry Stokes and Channel 7”. (Click here to read the article)

The above headlines of some of my articles on Bruce Lehrmann, Kerry Stokes and Channel 7 show a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Summary

Kerry Stokes uses Seven’s money and media to protect some of Australia’s most vile criminals and he should explain why.

Given Kerry Stokes has personally spent over $30 million on Ben Roberts-Smith alone. And Stokes only used his money after he was caught trying to fraudulently use Seven West Media’s and/or Channel 7’s money.

The question needs to be asked how many $millions of Channel 7’s shareholders money has Kerry Stokes spent to cover-up crimes by Ben Roberts-Smith, Bruce Lehrmann, Claudean Uamaki-Mu and others?

The total of what Kerry Stokes and Channel 7 has spent is certainly at least $50 million, and likely way over $60 million, because Kerry Stokes also uses Channel 7’s money to run a war of law to silence people who might expose Stokes’ and Seven’s crimes and corruption and that money should be added to the total.

Last year Kerry Stokes threatened the ABC, or called in a favour from ABC Chairman Kim Williams, to shaft Amber Harrison who has been “silenced for life” by billionaire Stokes from talking about corruption at Channel 7 and it’s parent company Seven West Media (SWM). (Click here to read more) Also see the short video below of a Four Corners promotion for a story on Seven.

Stokes’ war of law to silence Amber Harrison likely cost Seven’s shareholders $5 to $10 million. 

I also know this first-hand as I was on the receiving end of 4 SLAPP lawsuits by Kerry Stokes and Seven from 2014 until 2022 and I estimate Stokes spent around $5 to $10 million trying to silence me. Maybe more.

And there is still an outstanding arrest warrant, to serve 10 months jail in NSW for contempt of court, which was paid for and instituted by Channel 7 and Seven West Media on Kerry Stokes instructions.

I’m surprised Seven West Media shareholders, owners of Channel 7 and other media assets, haven’t instituted a class action against Kerry Stokes and his son Ryan Stokes, CEO of parent company Seven Group, for their financial mismanagement and fraud running Seven West Media and Channel 7.

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.


Discover more from Kangaroo Court of Australia

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

14 replies »

  1. Brilliant summarising of the woeful situation. Thank you KCA for your unrelenting exposure of the ugly facts behind those who manipulate the law to their own ends, in order to hide, deceive, deny and lie.

  2. Agree with comments so far. Thank you KCA for another powerful exposé – when media moguls spend millions shielding predators instead of pursuing truth, the rot runs deeper than most dare to admit.

    It’s deeply troubling to see the extent to which corporate power and media influence may have been used to shield individuals from public scrutiny and accountability. Regardless of one’s views on the cases mentioned, the pattern outlined here deserves serious public and shareholder concern.

    Shareholders of Seven West Media, in particular, must ask whether their investments are being used to protect reputations at the expense of journalistic integrity, justice, and the well-being of the community. When enormous sums are spent in legal manoeuvres tied to individuals accused of heinous conduct, the line between media responsibility and institutional complicity becomes dangerously blurred.

    This isn’t about revenge – it’s about transparency, ethical leadership, and whether a media empire should be in the business of legal warfare for personal or corporate protection.

    Australians deserve better from those who shape the narratives in our homes every night.

    If this is the future of Australian media – here billionaires bankroll silence and spin while victims are trampled and truth is gagged – then we’re not watching journalism anymore.

    We’re watching a state-sanctioned spectacle.

    • Maybe the answer to the question I posed above is that Ben Roberts-Smith has not yet been formally charged with (or found guilty of) war crimes. All that has happened so far is that various parties and/or Courts have declared that it is LIKELY Roberts-Smith is a war criminal. I understand that a formal investigation is currently being considered.

      • The last time I read our constitution a person is innocent until proven guilty. The current presentation of evidence and the chain of evidence does not hold true, yes our gutless Government and Chief of the Defence Force throw this soldier under the buss and apologised to a foreign government for something that still has not been proven, beyond doubt, which is what our law requires. Or do we now advocate for a system that hangs people first and write up the findings after the event. This is not the system I want and I sure you don’t want for us or our future generations to have to deal with and/ nor should we roll over an deem acceptable!

  3. Nine’s accusations are civil matters and subject to Criminal Law jurisdiction via Civil Courts. BRS’s alleged actions occurred while he was a serving soldier and thus must be tried under Military Law via Court Martial.

    • A Court Martial can only try BRS for crimes he has been formally charged with. Has BRS been formally charged with any crimes yet? Until such time as he is formally charged, BRS is legally entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Leave a Reply