Kerry Stokes – Seven Network

Kerry Stokes

For all to know and rely upon

KERRY STOKES HAS ILLEGAL PRIVATE COMMUNICATION WITH JUSTICE LUCY MCCALLUM AND GETS JUDICIAL FAVOURS

Kerry Stokes is guilty of the crime of having private communication with Justice Lucy McCallum and getting a judicial favour from her. The transcript tells the full story and is very incriminating. Stokes will lie and say it was not him and blame his barrister Sandy Dawson and lawyers Justine Munsie and Martin O’Connor. Well it’s a bit late for that as you will see.

Private communication is a contempt of court and Kerry Stokes has done this three times now so it is no accident. Twice with Justice Ian Harrison who I will deal with further in a future post and at least once with Justice Lucy McCallum who is the focus of this post.

Background (click here to go to the dedicated page for more details)

Kerry Stokes instituted proceedings against me for defamation in April for a post that I published on the 23rd of February this year. Stokes filed two notices of motions seeking suppression orders in the case and failed with the judgement handed down on the 23rd of April by Justice Harrison. I wrote about here and here.

So Stokes decided to have a 3rd attempt and approached Justice Harrison the following week (Starting the 28th of April) seeking to have the matter re-listed for further hearing. Stokes did this without my knowledge and consent so once again it was private communication with the judge by Stokes. It only came to my attention when I recently acquired some transcript from a later hearing and read what Stokes lawyer Sandy Dawson had said in court which I missed at the time.

The next week Justice Harrison was on holidays and Stokes and his Lawyer Justine Munsie went judge shopping and approached Munsie’s friend Justice Lucy McCallum who did the dirty work on Tuesday the 6th May. Again this was done without my knowledge or consent.

McCallum abridged (expedited) the 3rd notice of motion by Stokes and Munsie to be heard on the 8th of May by Justice Hall. I was notified by email at 5pm that day. Why didn’t they approach Hall in the first place? Because they knew there was no legal reason to expedite the application and they knew Justice McCallum was Munsie’s friend (as she admits in the transcript) and she would do what they wanted.

Expediting the process obviously helps someone like Stokes with numerous lawyers and undermines someone like myself who is self-represented by reducing the amount of time I have to prepare.

“If you know the processes and you’re a criminal,

you can abuse the system”

That’s what Stokes, his lawyers and Justice McCallum are doing. They should all be in jail

I phoned Stokes junior lawyer Kate Eaglen who sent me the email and asked her who the judge was that day. She said she was in court but could not remember the judge’s name. I then spoke to the Addisons Lawyers partner at the firm, Martin O’Connor, whose name is on all the court documents. He also didn’t know the judge’s name. So I emailed him later and he still did not know the judge’s name. (Click here to read)

I emailed the junior barrister Sandy Dawson asking the judge’s name and why he did not notify me about the court appearance and he refused to tell me. (Click here to read)

I went to court the next day (7th May) before the duty Judge Justice Hall to have the hearing on the 8th of May put off until the next week for numerous reasons with one being it was an abuse of process and I did not have time to prepare. Hall refused. I asked him the name of the judge who heard the matter the day before and page 5 of the transcript shows:

(Me) DEFENDANT:  I will leave it at that but what I would like to know is who was the judge yesterday who heard that, expedited that motion.

(Justice Hall) HIS HONOUR:  I am not here to answer questions. (Click here for the full transcript)

Justice Hall could have easily told me Justice McCallum’s name and so could have Stokes junior barrister Sandy Dawson. Neither of them would. Notice the protection racket between the lot of them. They knew Justice McCallum was in a lot of trouble. I found out McCallum’s name a couple of days later but have been waiting for transcript evidence to arrive before I outed her for the criminal that she is.

What is private communication?

Put simply it is when one party in a court case communicates with a judge without the knowledge or consent of the other party. This is covered in the Barrister Rules sections 53, 54 and 55 and is illegal if they are breached as it is a contempt of court. There is an exception in extreme matters called Ex Parte, but that needs to be justified and Stokes and his lawyers never could. Even in the transcript McCallum says she cannot see any justification. They are clearly abusing the system with the help of compliant judges.

“Every private communication to a judge, for the purposes
of influencing his decision upon a matter publicly before
him, always is, and ought to be, reprobated; it is a course
calculated, if tolerated, to divert the course of justice, and is
considered, and ought more frequently than it is, to be
treated as, what it really is, a high contempt of court.”
Re Dyce Sombre (1849) 1 Mac & G 116 at 122;
(1849) 41 ER 1207 at 1209 per Lord Cottenham LC (Click here to read more)

Justice McCallum and the personal interest – Her friend Justine Munsie Read the below transcript for the admission

Knowing a judge

I emailed Justice Lucy McCallum asking her many questions about her relationship with Justine Munsie but she has refused to answer them. (Click here to readI also emailed Justine Munsie and the other lawyers involved at Addisons Lawyers and they have refused to respond. (Click here to read)

The transcript that nails Justice McCallum (Click here to read - It is only three pages long and a must read as it shows you what really happens in court between the legal fraternity).

I have just copied the key parts below that show how corrupt Justice McCallum is.

McCALLUM J – TUESDAY 6 MAY 2014

2014/114469 -  JUSTINE MUNSIE  v  SHANE DOWLING

Page One

Mr A Dawson for the Plaintiff

No appearance for or on behalf of the Defendant (Of course not, they never told me about the hearing)

(Mr Dawson moved on the notice of motion seeking short service.)

(Her Honour declared that she had been briefed as a barrister in the past by Ms Munsie.  No objection to her Honour dealing with the matter.  Her Honour requested that the defendant be advised.) (That’s right, there was no objection to her Honour hearing the matter. What a joke!)

AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH MUNSIE OF 14/04/14 READ

AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD MICHAEL KEEGAN OF 17/04/14 READ

DAWSON:  This motion arises out of applications which have been before Harrison J in previous weeks in his capacity as duty judge.

Page 2

HER HONOUR:  And what is the urgency which warrants the abridgement of the time for service?

HER HONOUR:    It’s not a question of convenience, I don’t know that it’s proper for me to hear it, is it?  We could wait and see if there is an objection.

DAWSON:  Perhaps if the matter were to come back for directions tomorrow and Mr Dowling could indicate.

DAWSON: …….”I attempted to have the proceedings relisted before Harrison J last week.  His Honour declined to relist it and he is on leave this week, so there is no opportunity to go back before his Honour, which might seem to be the most obvious first course.”  

HER HONOUR:  I have to say, Mr Dawson, whilst I could well appreciate the anxiety that might be caused by the failure to determine the application on that primary basis on which it was put, given that the application was originally heard on 17 April 2014 and the passage of time between then and now, it’s difficult to see any urgency such as to warrant abridging the three day period to two days, or one day.

Page 3

HER HONOUR:  If you serve by 5 pm today.  Why not serve it by 5 pm today and have it returnable on Friday and that doesn’t involve an abridgement?

DAWSON:  We could do that if your Honour is against us on an abridgement of time.

HER HONOUR:  At the moment I am not persuaded that there is such urgency to warrant the abridgement of time between now and Thursday.

After that Justice McCallum gave Stokes what he wanted end expedited the matter and abridged it to less than 2 days.

Justice Harrison knocked Stokes back for a re-listing and they went judge shopping for someone more complaint to Stokes needs. They find Justine Munsie’s friend Justice Lucy McCallum and McCallum clearly knew they were judge shopping. McCallum says she can see no urgency but then she gives Stokes what he wants.

I have no doubt she planned that from the start and was just playing up to the people in the court. McCallum’s own staff and the court reporter would have known what McCallum was doing was wrong. How do I know? The following day I phoned Justice Hall’s office as he was the Duty Judge and I asked if I could see him to have the matter struck off or adjourned. Hall’s associate said that I would have to notify the other party. I said what if they do not come. She replied that Justice Hall would not hear the matter if both parties were not there. That confirmed what I already knew. Harrison and McCallum did? So why did they? How did they benefit by breaking the law?

On the 16th May the matter was before the duty judge which had been scheduled by Justice Harrison a few weeks earlier. And below is what Stokes junior barrister Sandy Dawson said: (Although he had still not told me that McCallum was the judge who heard the matter on the 6th of May)

“Now the reason it is not going to the defamation list, as it ordinarily would, your Honour, is that her Honour McCallum J who is the defamation list judge, when she was at the bar was briefed regularly by the first plaintiff (Justine Munsie), who was a solicitor.  And we anticipated Mr Dowling may have a different view.  But we anticipated that that might cause Mr Dowling some concern.  And that, rather than waste time and put it into the defamation list for him only to take that point when her Honour would inevitably raise it, we should raise it now and raise it before another judge of the division.  If Mr Dowling has no objection to McCallum J hearing the pleading arguments then it can go in the defamation list in the ordinary way.” (From page 6 of the transcript - Click here to read the full transcript)

So why didn’t Mr Dawson tell me about the personal interest earlier? And why did he previously go before McCallum when I was not there? It says in the McCallum transcript above “Her Honour requested that the defendant be advised.” in relation to McCallum knowing Munsie. Looks like Sandy Dawson and Stokes are in contempt of court for disobeying McCallum’s instructions.

McCallum’s woeful reply

Justice Lucy McCallum

I emailed Justice McCallum on Thursday and asked her numerous questions. (Click here to read the emailI phoned her chambers on Friday and left a message then received a response an hour or so later from Linda Murphy who is the CEO & Principle Registrar. (Click here to read)

McCallum took the literal meaning of private communication and said there was no private communication because it was done in open court and transcribed. McCallum is being dodgy as it is the legal definition of “private communication” that counts, that being I was not there and McCallum communicated with Stokes and his lawyers. Even more disturbing is that Stokes benefited from her judgement when McCallum admitted knowing Justine Munsie. McCallum did fail to answer the questions I asked as well. And why would no one tell me McCallum’s name?

I was not impressed with McCallum’s response so I did email her back with some advice and a free character assessment. (Click here to read)

Kerry’s response – It must be in the mail

I sent an email directly to Kerry Stokes via his PA Kate Lewis-Fuller at 1.30pm on Friday (Click here to readand will send others given Addisons and Justine Munsie’s failure to respond to my emails. I also phoned and emailed Tony Parker – General Counsel for Stokes private holding company Australian Capital Equity Pty Ltd. (Click here to read)

As for this post I did put Stokes on notice and gave him an opportunity to respond or comment. I called Kerry Stokes office (02) 8777 7104 at 5pm Friday and sent another email and let them know I would be publishing on Saturday. I have not had a response.

The court proceeding has been going less than 2 months but I already have enough material to write a second book on judicial corruption. This time Mr Stokes will be the star.