Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
A child recovery agent who once vowed he would not pay “one cent” to a lawyer he repeatedly defamed with vile and untrue accusations has been ordered to fork out more than $300,000.
Author and lawyer Jasmin Newman | Adam Whittington / Facebook
Adam Whittington, the founder of a child recovery organisation, was ordered to pay $160,000 in damages and $147,796 in costs for falsely accusing family dispute resolution practitioner Jasmin Newman of being a “paedophile sympathiser” and protector.
Justice Nicholas Chen said 10 of the 12 publications made by Whittington between December 2019 and October 2021 contained what he considered to be “grave or extreme imputations”.
“In relation to the seriousness of the imputations, I accept, as was submitted, that each of the imputations are inherently serious on their own – particularly those that falsely suggested the plaintiff supports paedophiles,” Justice Chen said in his written reasons.
Whittington came to the public’s attention in 2016 when he was detained alongside a Brisbane mother and a crew from 60 Minutes, including Tara Brown, when they botched an attempt to recover the mother’s children from their father in Lebanon.
Newman published a book several years later titled The Child Snatchers: The Complex Nature of Parent-Child Abduction, which included a chapter that criticised Whittington’s Beirut operation.
In response, Whittington used WordPress articles and social media accounts to allege Newman supported and sympathised with paedophiles, committed fraud, and committed a criminal offence by identifying victims of child sexual abuse in breach of court orders.
In one article, he wrote Newman was “the most disgusting paedophile sympathisers [sic] in Australia”, and later claimed she was “attacking women defending their sexually abused children”.
In another, after claiming he could show readers why Newman supported paedophilia, Whittington wrote people should be careful to “express truths” because “she instantly threatens to sue”.
“She’s done it to multiple people and organisations all to keep her dirty secrets hidden. Well up yours Jasmin,” he said.
Whittington did not appear in court to defend his vile accusations.
Back in December 2024, a few months before the hearing, he wrote an email to Newman’s counsel and told him to “stop wasting my time opening rubbish” and that he would “block you from this day on”.
He added: “Your scumbag client won’t get one cent. That I promise.”
While there was no evidence to suggest Whittington’s allegations made it into Newman’s professional circles or that the “readership” was anything other than limited, Justice Chen said he had no doubt the publications caused Newman “hurt and distress”.
“The impact of the defamatory matters upon the plaintiff has, I accept, been exacerbated not only by the defendant’s failure to apologise, but by his continuing publication of defamatory matters … after the plaintiff commenced these proceedings,” Justice Chen said.
In awarding damages, Justice Chen said Whittington has not only failed to apologise, “but has not removed (except the first matter) the publications from the internet and, importantly, has recently published further [defamatory] matters relating to the plaintiff”.
“Further, I accept … the circumstances of the defendant’s non-participation in these proceedings also amounted to conduct that should be considered aggravating: he chose not to file a defence … he chose not to defend the proceedings, and he chose not to participate,” Justice Chen said.
In addition to the monetary orders, Whittington has been permanently restrained from publishing the matters complained of in the proceedings and to remove the defamatory publications.
The case is Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
