Have any questions? Call us: 
For nearly two years, Jasmin Newman lived under relentless attack—not from some anonymous troll hiding behind a screen name, but from an Australian man who built an entire online apparatus to systematically destroy her reputation.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has now brought that campaign to a decisive halt, awarding Newman substantial damages for defamation to reflect both the extraordinary cruelty of the conduct and the catastrophic consequences it inflicted.
The architect of Newman’s nightmare was Adam Whittington, a self-styled child abduction recovery operator. Whittington ran organisations Child Abduction Recovery International (CARI) and Project Rescue Children, that were purported to be engaged in noble work across borders.
The court heard, Whittington used one of those platforms to wage a vicious vendetta against Newman after she published a book on a child-protection related topic that he found offensive.
The dispute escalated swiftly from professional disagreement into character assassination.
Between December 2019 and October 2021, Whittington launched twelve separate defamatory publications, posted across an array of blogs, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts he operated directly or through his organisation. What followed was not ordinary online criticism—it was a scorched-earth campaign designed to annihilate Newman’s personal and professional life.
In one post, Whittington branded Newman “the most disgusting paedophile sympathiser in Australia.” In another, he accused her of being “a disgraceful fraud, liar” who had committed criminal offences by breaching court orders. Repeatedly, he accused her of supporting paedophiles, associating with child abusers, attacking women who sought to protect their children, lying about her credentials, falsely claiming to be a psychologist, and grossly overcharging for her services.
The language was crude, incendiary and calculated to inflict maximum harm. “Misogynist with tits,” one post spat. In another, Whittington accused her of running fraudulent mediation services, describing her qualifications as “zero” and “non-existent.”
Every facet of Newman’s personal integrity and professional standing was targeted, and every accusation was broadcast under hashtags and page titles specifically designed to amplify the spread of the material across Whittington’s extensive online following.
When Newman finally brought legal proceedings against Whittington, the defendant simply refused to engage. Though repeatedly served with court documents and directly emailed about hearing dates, Whittington made it clear that he had no intention of participating. His last email to Newman’s legal team was pure defiance: “Your scumbag client won’t get one cent.”
Justice Nicholas Chen nevertheless proceeded with Newman’s claim in Whittington’s absence but painstakingly analysed each of the twelve defamatory publications.
The evidence was damning.
Newman provided harrowing evidence of the fallout. Her mental health deteriorated and her personal relationships suffered. Her professional work as a family dispute resolution practitioner was jeopardised. Witnesses testified to the anxiety, distress, and public humiliation she endured.
Justice Chen observed that the allegations—paedophilia sympathising, fraud, criminal conduct—sit at the absolute apex of defamation’s gravity describing them as “a direct assault on the plaintiff’s core professional function.”
The court also addressed the well-established “grapevine effect,” recognising that defamatory material online rarely stays confined to its original audience. Instead, it festers, resurfaces and continues to poison public perception over time, long after the initial publication.
But it was not just the gravity of the allegations that drove the damages high. Whittington had been given every opportunity to engage with the legal process, retract his statements, or apologise but chose instead to escalate his attacks and ignore the court entirely.
Ultimately, Justice Chen granted permanent injunctions against Whittington to prevent future defamatory publications and awarded Newman $160,000 in total damages and her legal costs in a welcome reminder that social media posting is not a lawless frontier.
Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275 Chen J, 26 March 2025
Categories: defamation