Lawyers for a second man who alleges he was falsely imprisoned by judge Salvatore Vasta say they will press forward with their case in the wake of a damning judgment denying him judicial immunity on Wednesday.
The federal court on Wednesday found in favour of a man, known only as “Mr Stradford”, who alleged he was falsely imprisoned by Vasta during a routine property settlement dispute in 2018.
Vasta, believing the man was withholding financial details, jailed him for contempt.
The federal court described the inferior court judge’s actions as a “gross and obvious irregularity of procedure”, saying he committed “serious and fundamental errors”, exceeded his jurisdiction, and was not entitled to the protection of judicial immunity.
A second case against Vasta, launched by Queensland man Leigh Jorgensen, has been temporarily on hold pending Wednesday’s judgment. His lawyers, Ken Cush and Associates, say they will now proceed in suing Vasta personally for alleged false imprisonment.
Jorgensen, a Queensland tourism operator, was before Vasta on a minor civil matter relating to alleged underpayments in 2018.
Believing he had breached freezing orders, Vasta found Jorgensen guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment, though he was to be released after 10 days if he paid money to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
The full bench of the federal court intervened after the man had spent two days behind bars. It found Vasta’s trial of the man for contempt of court had “substantially miscarried for at least four reasons”, including the “primary judge’s excessive, unwarranted and inappropriate interventions”.
The court described Vasta’s behaviour in the Jorgensen case as an “egregious departure from the role of a judge presiding over an adversarial trial”. The departure had meant his ability to “objectively evaluate the evidence was fundamentally compromised”. The court described his approach as “sarcastic, disparaging and dismissive of significant parts of Mr Jorgensen’s evidence” and said his questioning was “aggressive and, at times, unfair”.
Jorgensen sued Vasta personally in early 2021 but his case was temporarily stayed, or put on hold, pending the outcome in the Stradford case.
His case also alleges Vasta should not be afforded the usual judicial immunity that protects judges from being sued, because he acted without jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction.
His claim against Vasta alleges an “abuse of government power” and a “disregard for Jorgensen’s rights”. It also alleges Jorgensen suffered mental harm and humiliation due to the imprisonment.
Ken Cush and Associates, which represents both Jorgensen and Stradford, confirmed it would now push ahead with Jorgensen’s claim.
“In light of this decision, we anticipate another matter already before the federal court, the matter of Jorgensen, will be relisted for case management in coming weeks,” Sam Tierney, the firm’s principal solicitor, said.
The Australian Bar Association, meanwhile, has said the Stradford decision should prompt urgent consideration of legislative reform.
The association’s president, Peter Dunning KC, said the decision raised “potentially significant issues” for the work of judges in inferior courts.
“Without in any way commenting on the content of the judgment itself, or diminishing the impact of the events on the applicant, the issue raised concerning judicial immunity is one of such magnitude that it should be the subject of urgent legislative consideration, regardless of whether the judgment is appealed,” Dunning said.
“Judicial immunity is an important institutional requirement in facilitating the fearless administration of justice by judges across Australia. When occasions arise, such as the present, that in a significant way impact the understanding of its boundaries, it is always appropriate to consider whether the immunity remains appropriately calibrated to securing that fearless independence.”
It is unclear who will pay for Vasta’s legal costs, or for any damages, but commonwealth officials such as judges are generally insured by Comcover, the Australian government’s self-managed insurance fund.
A spokesperson for the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, said the government was “considering the judgment delivered yesterday in this matter”, but declined to comment further.
The government continues to consult with the legal sector about the prospect of a federal judicial commission, which could investigate complaints against judges.
It has provided “in principle” support to establishing the commission. In June, Dreyfus told more than 80 federal circuit and family court of Australia judges that any model for a commission “must respect the independence of the courts and judiciary enshrined in the constitution” as “this independence is fundamental to the rule of law and democracy in Australia”.
A spokesperson for the federal circuit and family court said the court and Vasta would not comment.
