The federal government is preparing to introduce reforms granting greater protections to inferior court judges after a landmark case in which a wrongfully imprisoned man successfully sued Salvatore Vasta.
Vasta, a judge in the federal circuit court, was successfully sued this year by a man who he falsely imprisoned during a routine property dispute after a series of “serious and fundamental errors” and “gross and obvious irregularity of procedure”.
The case was highly unusual because sitting judges are typically protected by judicial immunity from civil action over their decisions.
In finding against Vasta, the federal court found he was not entitled to such immunity because he had acted outside his jurisdiction and denied the man “fundamental” steps of procedural fairness or justice.
The decision highlighted a significant difference in the protections that judicial immunity gave to federal circuit and family court judges compared to those on the bench in other federal courts.
The Vasta case prompted immediate concern among fellow federal circuit court judges, who said they were facing threats of litigation following the decision and prompting a revolt on the bench.
A spokesperson for the federal circuit court said at the time that its “experienced and diligent judges are now in an impossible position” and that there are “certain types of cases that they cannot hear” following the decision.
The Law Council and the Australian Bar Association called for urgent reform to give certainty about immunity across the various federal courts.
“This recent decision highlights the particular need for further consideration to be given to legislative certainty with respect to the Federal Circuit and Family Court,” Law Council of Australia president, Luke Murphy, said in September.
Guardian Australia understands the government is preparing to introduce reforms to ensure that federal circuit and family court judges have the same protection through judicial immunity as other federal judges.
The bill, to be introduced into the Senate next week, will grant the same rules of judicial immunity that federal court and other higher-level judges get to judges in inferior courts.
In the Vasta case, the plaintiff was awarded $309,450 in damages. Vasta was ordered to pay $50,000 of the total sum in exemplary damages for false imprisonment and deprivation of liberty.
The Law Council of Australia said that the concept of judicial immunity was crucial to the independence of the bench and ensuring they act “without external influences such as a fear of personal liability after the fact”.
“Importantly, judicial immunity does not mean a lack of accountability for the exercise of judicial functions,” Murphy said. “The majority of Australia’s states and territories have an independent statutory mechanism to receive, manage and investigate complaints about judicial officers, and at the federal level the Australian Government is in the process of establishing of a Federal Judicial Commission.”
