Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta has won his High Court bid for immunity against being sued by a man he wrongly imprisoned for contempt of court in a family law matter in 2018.
Brisbane man “Mr Stradford” was awarded more than $300,000 in August 2023, with the primary judge finding the judge’s conduct “demonstrated a thoroughly reckless disregard of, if not outright contempt for, Mr Stradford and his rights” and that the award of $50,000 in exemplary damages would “serve to deter any repetition of such a thoroughly unacceptable abuse of judicial power in the future”.
The Commonwealth was held to be vicariously liable for the conduct of the court holding-cell guards, and Queensland was found to be vicariously liable for the conduct of the relevant police officers and the correctional officers.
Judge Vasta, the Commonwealth and Queensland appealed the judgment to the High Court, raising three principal issues:
- whether the order made by Judge Vasta imprisoning Mr Stradford was valid even though it was affected by jurisdictional error;
- the scope of immunity from civil suits of judges in inferior courts, such as judges of the Federal Circuit Court;
- whether guards, police officers and correctional officers have a defence because they executed an order or warrant issued by a court that appeared valid on its face even though it was invalid because of the errors committed by Judge Vasta.
In a decision published today, the High Court ruled the order made by Judge Vasta was invalid.
On the second issue, it ruled the common law afforded the same immunity from civil suits to judges of inferior courts as it did to judges of superior courts.
“Under that common law, judges of Australian courts – being the “courts” referred to in s 71 of the Constitution including any court of a Territory and any “court of a State” as referred to in s 77(iii) of the Constitution (irrespective of whether those courts are invested with federal jurisdiction) – are immune from civil suit arising out of acts done in the exercise, or purported exercise, of their judicial function or capacity,” the majority judgment stated.
“As Judge Vasta purported to perform such a function in convicting and sentencing Mr Stradford, he is not liable to Mr Stradford for false imprisonment.
“In respect of the third issue, the common law affords some protection from civil liability to those who have a legal duty to enforce or execute orders or warrants made or issued in judicial proceedings of the courts just described, including an inferior court, even if those orders or warrants are invalid for jurisdictional error.
“In the case of invalid orders or warrants, this protection does not extend to authorise acts done in enforcing or executing an order or warrant of a kind which, on its face, is beyond the power of the relevant court to make or issue.”
Each of the officers had a legal duty to enforce or execute orders or warrants made or issued by the Federal Circuit Court, the majority judgment stated.
“There was nothing apparent on the face of the orders made and warrant issued by Judge Vasta which suggested they were beyond his power to make. Otherwise, none of the Queensland police officers, the Queensland correctional officers and the MSS Guards were aware of any defect of authority on the part of Judge Vasta to imprison Mr Stradford. It follows that they also are not liable to Mr Stradford,” it stated.
“Accordingly, the appeals must be allowed, the primary judge’s decision set aside and Mr Stradford’s proceedings dismissed.”
Share this article