NSW Police lashed by Sydney magistrate over bid to suppress Friendlyjordies YouTube videos
A judge had harsh words for NSW Police on Wednesday over a bid to suppress YouTuber Friendlyjordies from talking about a court case.
NewsWire
Don't miss out on the headlines from NewsWire. Followed categories will be added to My News.
NSW Police have been lashed by a Sydney magistrate for a misconceived attempt to have the YouTuber Friendlyjordies found in contempt of court over two videos about criminal allegations faced by his producer.
Magistrate Jacqueline Milledge described Jordan Shanks’ content as “absolute gibberish” in Downing Centre Local Court on Wednesday but said she could not see how it reached the high bar of contempt.
“I’ve never seen an application like that before in this court,” the magistrate said.
She suggested police were giving Mr Shanks “oxygen” and those he had targeted — including Police Minister David Elliott — might need to be “a little bit more resilient”.
The court was told the videos were about charges laid earlier this year against Mr Shanks’ producer Kristo Langker, who is accused of stalking former deputy premier John Barilaro.
Mr Langker has pleaded not guilty, vowing to fight the charges at a hearing in May 2022.
NSW Police have now asked the court to force Mr Shanks to take down two videos about Mr Langker’s case, effectively suppressing him from talking about it until after the hearing, and find him in contempt of court.
But what was supposed to be a brief mention on Wednesday stretched into minutes and then hours as the police lawyer admitted he had misunderstood a crucial directive and a tracksuit-wearing barrister listening in was mistaken for a fellow YouTuber and unceremoniously booted from the audiovisual link.
Police prosecutor Amin Assaad told the court Mr Shanks’ videos could influence witnesses in Mr Langker’s case to “take a negative view of the prosecution”.
He described Mr Shanks as “a gift that keeps on giving” as he told Ms Milledge a second video about the case had been published 15 hours ago.
“It’s had a quarter of a million views and it’s only growing,” he said.
Mr Assaad said Mr Shanks could “talk to his heart’s content about anything on this planet except for the hearing and the evidence to be given in May 2022”.
“We’re not undermining free speech,” he added.
But Mr Shanks’ barrister Philip Strickland SC said the police application was flawed in a multitude of ways.
“It’s the police wanting to shut down criticism of the police,” he said.
“It’s tantamount to an abuse of process.”
Ms Milledge said publishing a video 15 hours ahead of court proceedings might display “cheekiness” or an “up yours” attitude.
But after reading the transcript of Mr Shanks’ latest offering, she declared: “Worse things are said about judicial officers every day in court proceedings.
“I’ve never seen an application like that before in this court. What are you saying that proves?” she asked Mr Assaad.
“Being 100 per cent factually incorrect in terms of the Police Minister …” Mr Assaad began.
“So what? The minister can sue him,” Ms Milledge said.
The magistrate said Mr Shanks “clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about with regards to a lot of the matters he’s raising” but was entitled to his opinion about the strength of the case against Mr Langker.
“As idiotic as some people might think his views are, stifling them?” she said.
Mr Assaad argued Mr Shanks was “leading the charge” against Mr Langker’s prosecution.
“You’re calling it a charge, god, it’s not even a walk through the park,” the magistrate replied.
“It’s inane.”
Mr Assaad was further criticised by both the magistrate and Mr Strickland for failing to file an affidavit in support of the application, which the police had been ordered to do in early September.
Mr Assaad said he didn’t recall the order being made.
The magistrate eventually ordered the police to rewrite the application, which she described as “clearly defective”, and file all supporting evidence by next week.
Mr Strickland said the application should be dismissed altogether, but if police were permitted to alter it, they should pay Mr Shanks’ costs.
Mr Langker’s barrister Emmanuel Kerkyasharian agreed, saying police should also pay Mr Langker’s costs as they had “wasted the whole day because of their conduct”.
Mr Assaad fought on, claiming a hefty sum Mr Shanks had raised on GoFundMe meant he had not personally incurred the costs of the hearing and police should be spared from paying them.
But Ms Milledge disagreed and ordered police to pick up the tab for both men.
“I’m not spending any more time on this matter today,“ she said before adjourning.
The matter returns to court on October 22.
Originally published as NSW Police lashed by Sydney magistrate over bid to suppress Friendlyjordies YouTube videos