In 2018, a man who was wrongly imprisoned by Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta during a family property dispute has described the High Court ruling that judges cannot be sued as a “dark day.” The case began when the man, who had been wrongfully jailed, sued Judge Vasta for the mistake.
The man had also filed lawsuits against the Queensland government and the Commonwealth, seeking over $300,000 in damages after spending several days in jail in December 2018.
The situation began when Judge Vasta sentenced the man to 12 months in jail for contempt of court due to his failure to provide required documents. However, after spending a week in custody, including time in the Brisbane Correctional Centre, the man was released following a stay order made by Judge Vasta himself while an appeal was underway.
At the time, the judge admitted that he had made errors in determining that the man was in contempt and in sentencing him to jail.
In February 2019, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia allowed the man’s appeal, which cleared the way for him to pursue compensation for false imprisonment from Judge Vasta, as well as the Queensland government and the Commonwealth, claiming they were vicariously liable for the actions of the officers who detained him.
The Federal Court ruled in favor of the man, with Justice Michael Wigney stating that Judge Vasta had acted beyond his jurisdiction and was not shielded by judicial immunity. Justice Wigney criticized the hearing, describing it as a “parody,” and noting that Judge Vasta had found the man in contempt without establishing the necessary facts to justify the sentence.
The Queensland government and the Commonwealth were also involved in the case. Queensland argued that its officers were not liable since they were following orders, while the Commonwealth defended the actions of the guards who initially detained the man at the court. However, the Federal Court sided with the man, leading Judge Vasta, as well as the Commonwealth and Queensland, to appeal the decision in the High Court.
Today, the High Court upheld all the appeals, focusing on the issue of judicial immunity. The majority judgment stated that there should be no distinction in the scope of immunity granted to judges of all courts, noting that the purpose of this immunity is to allow judges to perform their duties independently, free from the threat of litigation, and to ensure the finality of judicial decisions.
In response to the ruling, the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, expressed his frustration, highlighting the impact of the decision on himself and others in similar situations. He described it as a “dark day” for those who suffer due to the actions of judges, who are then protected by absolute immunity from any consequences.
While the High Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications, a law change had already been made in response to the situation. Following the compensation order, the Federal Parliament enacted a new law clarifying the position of judges in the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2), which had previously been uncertain. The new law ensures that judges, while protected from lawsuits, remain accountable through the appeals process and potential removal from office for misconduct, as per the Constitution.
Attorney General Mark Dreyfus emphasized that the new law does not remove the ability to challenge judicial decisions or hold judges accountable. He stated that judicial independence is vital for the justice system, allowing judges to make decisions based on their assessment of the facts and the law without fear of legal action.