Four mystery Channel Seven women awarded $600,000 plus costs in a defamation case against KCA journalist
By Shane Dowling on September 21, 2019 • ( 17 Comments )
Four Channel 7 female employees have won a defamation case and have been awarded a total of $600,000 plus indemnity costs which will likely bring the total to over $1 million against Kangaroo Court of Australia publisher Shane Dowling.
One of the women is a well-known on-air host at Seven, another is an actress on Seven and I understand one left Seven in 2017 and the fourth woman left sometime before 2017. The four women were named in a legal document that Amber Harrison lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2015 that claimed the women had sexual relationships with former Seven West Media CEO Tim Worner who was forced to resign (sacked) on the 16th of August 2019. The document also spoke of Tim Worner "grooming" women at Seven and in the industry for his "sexual gratification".
The reason I named the women was that they were named in a legal document and it told part of the overall story about the fraud and mismanagement at Seven. That mismanagement has ultimately led to Seven sacking their CEO Tim Worner and everyone knows Seven is for sale. Seven's debt is now greater than their market value and Chairman Kerry Stokes and the board don't have a clue what to do so they are looking to sell out.
While technically it was the women's court case against me it is Kerry Stokes' Seven West Media who paid the legal fees and Kerry Stokes who was in regular communication with the lawyers giving them instructions. Their lawyer Richard Keegan said 2 years ago when he was in the witness stand on the 1st of March 2017 when the matter was before Justice Ian Harrison:
Q. Mr Keegan, you have four clients in this matter?
A. I do, yes.
Q. They're all paying you individually?
A. I don't know whether they're paying individually or all together for the one proceedings.
Q. So you don't know?
A. That's correct.
Later in proceedings Richard Keegan changed his tune. Did he commit perjury?
Q. You don't know who is paying?
A. No, I don't.
Q. So is it highly likely Seven West Media, is that right?
Q. It is highly likely?
Q. So Seven West Media are paying for their legal fees?
It is important to confirm the fact that Seven West Media are paying for the matter for many reasons. Whoever pays for the court case controls it and that means Kerry Stokes has ultimate control as chairman.
Richard Keegan again – Kerry Stokes heavily involved in the defamation and contempt case
Q. Have you spoken to Kerry Stokes in relation to this matter?
A. I have been in contact with him.
Q. So he's involved in this matter now?
A. Yes, he's concerned about the impact this is having upon his employees.
Q. And Kerry Stokes, how many times have you been in contact with Kerry
Stokes?
A. Do you mean about these matters or ever?
Q. Yeah, about this specific matter?
A. They're all email.
Q. No, that's fine?
A. So I probably say five to ten emails.
Q. Five to ten, maybe up to fifteen?
A. No.
Q. So five to ten?
A. (Witness nodded.)
If Richard Keegan is saying 5 to 10 emails I would expect the real number to be a lot higher and how many phone calls have there been? Kerry Stokes is not executive Chairman so he shouldn't have had anything to do with the case and even an Executive Chairman should not have been giving instructions to a junior lawyer.
When I asked Richard Keegan again who was paying for the proceedings when he was in the witness stand on the 26th of August 2019 Justice Fagan wouldn't allow the question. What Justice Fagan didn't know was I already knew the answer and Justice Fagan just confirmed his bias.
All four women refused to show up to the final hearing on the 26th and 27th of August 2019, they all refused to sign affidavits, they all refused to give evidence in the witness stand under oath, they all refused to answer interrogatories or agree to discovery of documents, there was no jury and the judge, Justice Desmond Fagan, lied throughout his dodgy judgment and relied on hearsay evidence from their lawyer Richard Keegan.
It should be no surprise that Justice Fagan stitched me up given that I publish a judicial corruption website and I wrote about Fagan's criminal conduct on the bench a few weeks ago. (Click here to read more)
Richard Keegan admitted in the witness stand under oath and in front of Justice Desmond Fagan, that a junior lawyer at his law firm Addisons, who reported to partner Justine Munsie who has the Kerry Stokes / Seven West Media account, set up a fake GoFundMe page in the name of Amber Harrison. At the time Amber Harrison, who was in a well-publicised legal fight with Seven over her affair with CEO Tim Worner, had set up a GoFundMe to pay for her legal bills. The fake GoFundMe page was an exact copy of Amber Harrison's and would have confused people and put them off donating. Richard Keegan said in the witness stand that they had set up the fake website for market research which I judged as being blatant perjury by Keegan and admission of fraud and identity theft by lawyers at Addisons for impersonating Amber Harrison. On that basis, Justice Fagan should have ignored all of Keegan's evidence. (Click here to read an article about the fake GoFundMe page)
Details in legal documents before courts and tribunals are protected from defamation claims in what is known as "Absolute Privilege" which is section 27 of the Defamation Act 2005. Justice Desmond Fagan and the applicant's barrister Sandy Dawson admitted at the hearing on the 27th of August 2019 that documents lodged with teh AHRC were protected by absolute privilege, but Justice Fagan has obviously done a backflip. Dawson did argue that I had to wait until March 2017 before I could name them but then he also did a backflip in his written submissions in reply to my submissions.
I'll briefly dissect a couple of the lies in the judgment: (Click here to read the judgment) Justice Fagan hasn't published the judgment on the internet which he has a habit of doing and it is very dodgy and corrupt so I scanned in the copy I was given.
Judgment lies:
In paragraph 2 Justice Desmond Fagan says that the 4 women work at Seven. As I already wrote I understand that is wrong and 2 left the company a long time ago and only the well-known on-air host and actress still work there.
In paragraph 7 I named the on-air host and the actress on my website in December 2016 and they went to court and got suppression and non-publication orders the next day even though the horse had bolted which is a good reason why they shouldn't have been allowed the suppression and non-publication orders.
I named the second two women in an article on the 21st of January 2017, but they took no action. A month later I wrote another article on the 19th of February again naming the second 2 women and pointing out they had not sued like the on-air host and actress which I said was telling. Only then did the second 2 women sue but only for the article I published on the 19th of February 2016 and they were also given suppression orders and non-publication orders to protect their names by Justice Walton. Their names had already been on the internet for a month, so they had no right to suppression orders and non-publication orders and Justice Fagan conveniently leaves that out of his judgment.
In paragraphs 17 to 25 Justice Fagan does a big song and dance how I had failed to file the proper paperwork for a jury, and it didn't matter anyhow as a jury would have been a waste of time he said because of me wasting time in court. The reality is a jury would never have found me guilty of defamation when they saw none of the four applicants had filed sworn affidavits, none of the four applicants had shown up to court for the hearing, none of the four applicants would give evidence in the witness stand under oath and I wasn't allowed interrogatories or discovery. The jury would also have seen Richard Keegan's perjury in full flight.
In paragraph 51 Justice Desmond Fagan tells a huge lie in relation to Amber Harrison's legal document filed with the Australian Human Rights Commission which names the four women as having sexual relationships with Seven CEO Tim Worner. Justice Fagan says, "There has been no admissible evidence tendered to prove what the former employee may have communicated to the AHRC." That's a lie and I tendered two pages of Amber Harrison's AHRC complaint as part of my defence which I filed in March 2017. Justice Fagan knows that as it was discussed numerous times in court as it was part of my defence and I also handed up another copy of the 2 pages on the day of the hearing. That's why Justice Fagan and the women didn't want a jury as they would have seen what was written in the AHRC complaint and the fact that women refused to refute it under oath or in any way other than having their lawyer deny via inadmissible hearsay evidence.
The 2 pages of the document I tendered to the court is the same document that a lot of other media referred to in reports but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether I had a defence or not because the applicant's had to prove their case. The four women failed to prove their case because they refused to give evidence in their own case. Perjury being a jailable offence stops a lot of people from giving evidence.
Justice Fagan also ordered me to take down whole articles instead of just the names of the women for no logical reason although he goes on a nutters rant in the judgment trying to justify it. The real reason is that a lot of the articles I have to take down have little to do with the women except naming them but are about judicial corruption and one even talks about Seven's top lawyer Bruce McWilliam, who knows a lot of judges, stalking journalists via email and admitting he received judicial favours.
Justice Fagan has continued the non-publication orders when there is no legal basis to do so. It is only in exceptional circumstances that there should be non-publication orders, and this isn't one of them nor did the applicants identify any exceptional circumstance, otherwise it undermines the publics' confidence in the judicial system.
We have all heard the names of Geoffrey Rush, Craig McLachlan and Rebel Wilson suing for defamation in recent times and that is the way it should be. It is what is called open justice and it is what is meant to help keep the courts accountable.
Open justice is one of the fundamental attributes of a fair trial. That the administration of justice must take place in open court is a 'fundamental rule of the common law'. The High Court has said that 'the rationale of the open court principle is that court proceedings should be subjected to public and professional scrutiny, and courts will not act contrary to the principle save in exceptional circumstances
In Russell v Russell, Gibbs J said that it is the 'ordinary rule' of courts of Australia that their proceedings shall be conducted 'publicly and in open view'; without public scrutiny, 'abuses may flourish undetected'. (Click here to read more)
I said to Justice Fagan in my written submissions, which I had also said in court:
This is a SLAPP lawsuit and is part of a number of SLAPP lawsuits being run against me by Kerry Stokes and his companies Seven West Media and Capilano Honey. Kerry Stokes has a long history using a war of law strategy including the infamous C7 case where Seven had to pay $200 million in costs when they lost.
This particular SLAPP lawsuit has no legal basis and was designed to protect former Seven West Media CEO Tim Worner during the Amber Harrison sex, drug and fraud scandal. This is consistent with the same lawyers and Kerry Stokes' Seven West Media running the same scam in the Munsie v Dowling (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 709 (21 May 2018) which was Kerry Stokes, his lawyer Justine Munsie and Ryan Stokes suing me for defamation.
In the Munsie matter they also had no evidence at the final hearing, no witnesses except hearsay evidence from their lawyer Richard Keegan, the applicants never showed up to the hearing, no jury and I wasn't allowed interrogatories or discovery.
The decision is a judgment handed down by a corrupt judge who without a doubt in on the take and the judgment designed, at least partly, to try and intimidate all Australian citizens to protect an already corrupt judiciary who makes big dollars on the side. To prove the point is was reported by Fairfax Media and the ABC in 2015 that NSW judges were bribed $2.2 million by the Australian Mafia to reduce one person's jail sentence. I made a formal complaint to ICAC but it was swept under the carpet. (Click here to read more) If judges make $2.2 million just in a bribe in one matter how much are they making in total every year?
This website is here to expose judicial corruption and I believe most fair-minded people who have a close look at the facts in this matter would be greatly disturbed at the state of open justice, natural justice and a fair go in Australia's courts. So from that viewpoint, I think it is a good judgment as it makes it blatantly obvious to the public how corrupt the courts are.
There are a lot of twists and turns moving forward and there is still a current application in the High Court of Australia to have this matter removed to High Court so we'll see what happens there. But as far I am concerned the High Court's Chief Justice Susan Kiefel needs to take ownership of the above judgment because Justice Desmond Fagan knew that there was an application before the High Court and he refused to adjourn the matter until the High Court had decided what to do. Justice Fagan was happy to hand down a dodgy judgment so I can only assume that Justice Fagan knew he had the protection of the High Court and Chief Justice Susan Kiefel. And the High Court should have removed the matter to their court earlier as they are well aware of what is happening in this court case.
I'll have plenty more to say on this matter in the future as it is part of the huge press freedom issue being played out in Australia where more and more people with power are trying to silence the media.
Please use the Twitter, Facebook, email and other buttons below and help promote this post.
If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right or left of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.
Categories: Channel 7, Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, Justice Desmond Fagan, Kerry Stokes, Ryan Stokes, Seven West Media, Uncategorized
Tagged as: Amber Harrison, Kerry Stokes, Seven West Media, Tim Worner
Federal MP Gladys Liu refuses to answer questions regarding her $2.1 million court judgment windfall
Prime Minister Scott Morrison confirms judicial paedophile protection racket with 28% not going to jail
I can't believe this happening to you.
Graeme Little Ne Peter Pope says:
Mate, you are a legend for fighting this corrupt and satanic world we find our reality immersed in now – they almost shove it in our faces these days because they know there is no legal system functioning anymore in these high profile "expose" cases. I am ashamed of my profession and am way past the point of no return in exercising my paramount duty to the Court as an Australian lawyer to expose corruption where I see it – sadly fighting pharma corruption daily, I virtually ONLY SEE CORRUPTION – almost impossible to find a single public servant in Australia prepared to administer the law when it comes to high profile public interest cases. Victorian AG Jill Hennessy is trying to jail me next month because I dared to investigate her conduct I allege was corrupt. Fingers crossed I get a fair trial.
"Fingers crossed I get a fair trial" Exactly. You have sworn your duty to the court, just as CIA folk swear silence.You have corn to ignore corruption, so that make it very tough for you.Take care alleging corruption. She must have been mistaken… I hope you are being represented as emotion can get in the way of clear thought. On big Pharma, pointing out the Rockefeller Foundation control of universities might help. Measles is the easiest point of attack on vaccination. Do you need an observer in court?
anne margetts says:
Well done Shane,you have so much integrity and honesty,,Keep up the good fight ,Your publication keeps us all informed ,We are not mushrooms and deserve to know the truth,Thankyou….
This sounds like a Faulty Towers version of Court, but without the laughter!!!! No witnesses, no affidavits, no oaths, no cross examination – did the Judge wear a Clown suit – as that's the standard that was delivered. This is an embarrassment to the Judiciary. Is the Govt running Courts or Circus'!!!!! "All four women refuse to show up to the final hearing . . . they all refuse to sign affidavits, they all refuse to give evidence in the witness stand under oath, they all refuse to answer interrogatories or agree to discovery of documents, there was no jury and the judge, Justice Desmond Fagan, relied on hearsay evidence from their lawyer Richard Keegan. This is a mockery . . . and all judges should be taking Justice Fagan to task for dragging the Judiciary into his mud. Where is the State Govt – this is far more serious than a Judge dodging a speeding ticket – and he was stripped of his position and jailed – what then should be happening to Justice Fagan!!!!! Stop the rot and get some standards in the Judiciary. The corruption has to stop – these are public servants – NOT serving the public interest! Constitutional sacking should be levied at such misuse of power! and misbehaviour!
Absolutely agree with every word you say Kat. When will the infamous "someone" do something about this kind of embarrassing excuse for justice? Shane is giving it a great shot but he needs numbers.
Douglas Sinclair says:
Hi Shane, My deepest sympathies. I too suffered a similar damage from an equally inept and corrupt judicial process based on a similar premise with the aid of the stupidly abusive law of defamation. It cost me 7 years under bankruptcy and $700K. The appellant had done this more than once as a means to supplementary earnings.
The law is not just an ass, it is very much corrupt and abusive of honest citizens and totally shit.
In my matter an insider said there is only one thing you can do, and that is suck up to the bench. Bigtime. You have failed the suck test miserably. Read Sidney Powells book "Licensed to Lie" and find, sadly, that you are not alone.
Jonde says:
There is far more corruption in the Australian legal system than there is among the world's drug cartels' lawyers and law officers in the mix..
To make the matter worse, the majority of average Aussies believe that Australia's legal system is fair and just.
The Attorney General of Australia admitted at trial to handing over a brown paper bag of money to the magistrate, and not a word was said
Should be a Royal Commission into these matters.
darrylo2013 says:
I urge you to look at the alleged "court order" , if the words "Coram Judice" are not on the order then it is not worth the paper it is written on.
BigAl says:
In 'Rake' we saw it all in jest, but this is real life. Appalling.
Damian says:
The writer was not jesting just writing about a subject well versed in so as to make a $$$
No surprises here having worked on set with one of these gals a right little bopper for her age she was quite playful. I do not flash the cash. Thus quite likely she and other starlets were stoked to appear.
grumpyoldman22 says:
How is it that PM Morrison would bring Stokes with him on his current trade mission to the USA? Stokes probably has something on Morrison that made it expedient. Trump veto'd Morrison's Hillsong mate and no doubt could have done the same to Stokes if he wanted.
NEVILLE says:
This sort of judiciary corruption is quite contagious as seen in England lately when the Tony Blair appointed Supreme Court violated the magna carta and we all know what the punishment for that is .