by A judge who wrongly imprisoned a father of two during routine divorce procedures must be protected against personal consequences for his actions, has ruled the Supreme Court, despite the delivery described as an “insult to court” and a “parody “.
The ruling of the Supreme Court on Wednesday restores broad protection to all federal judges and protects them in order to be charged with incorrect decisions, and destroys a decision of 2023 that shook the legal brotherhood of Australia and reason for urgent calls for reform.
In a milestone decision in August 2023, the sitting federal circuit judge Salvatore Vasta was successfully sued by a man he wrongly caught during a relatively small divorce case to cut the former assets of a few.
Vasta repeatedly threatened to make Stradford in prison – not his real name – during the procedure because he believed that he had not revealed all his financial information. Stradford, who did not have a lawyer who supported him, was told at one point that he was imprisoned when he continued to talk about the judge and was warned to meet the disclosure assignments of Vasta or “bring your toothbrush with him”.
Vasta later imprisoned him for 12 months for contempt from the court, to be suspended after six months, and Stradford in custody for seven days before another court intervened to free him and said that the prison sentence is a prison sentence one “Insult to the judge” would be “.
Related: Sam Kerr Trial: How a drunken night out revealed questions about race, power and privilege
Stradford has described his time in prison as moving and said he was subject to a threat threat, abuse and suicide thoughts.
Later he personally sued Vasta to the federal court for false prison sentence.
Judges are usually protected against civil action for what they do on the couch, a concept that is known as judicial immunity.
But the federal court ruled that Vasta had made a series of basic errors, surpassed its jurisdiction and was involved in a “gross and clear irregularity of the procedure”.
It found Vasta, as a judge in the Federal Circuit Court, which is considered an ‘inferior’ court in the Commonwealth System, was not entitled to judicial immunity and Stradford was awarded $ 309,450 compensation.
The decision shocked the peak groups of the nation. The Australian Bar Association and Law Society called for urgent reform and the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, quickly introduced legislation to ensure that all federal judges were correctly protected against personal liability for their behavior on the bank.
The case was also appealed at the Supreme Court, which asked a judgment on Wednesday.
It was agreed the hearing of the court in which Vasta Stradford was a “parody” and that his order to prisoners were invalid.
But it also discovered that he was entitled to judicial immunity, regardless of his status as the judge of the inferior court.
Related: Bridget McKenzie, Moira Deeming and Key News Corp Figures to attend the ‘Civilization’ conference of Jordan Peterson
Judges such as Vasta, the Supreme Court said, “are immune to civil proceedings arising from actions done in the exercise, or alleged exercise, of their judicial function or capacity”.
“As Judge Vasta claimed to perform such a position in the condemnation and condemnation of Mr Stradford, he is not liable for Mr Stradford for false imprisonment,” the court said in a summary of his judgment.
It also found the guards and security officials who were not liable for the order of Vasta to exclude Vasta.
“Each of the police officers of Queensland and the Correctional Officers of Queensland had a legal obligation to carry out or carry out orders or orders or issued by the Federal Circuit Court,” the court said.
“The MSS guards also had a duty to enforce an oral command of Judge Vasta and that they had to hold the Lord Stradford. There was nothing clear at first sight of the command and the order issued by Judge Vasta, who suggested that they were out of his power to make. “
Stradford’s lawyers released a statement on behalf of their client and said that he respected the decision, but that it was a “dark day” for people like him who have the consequences of poor judicial decisions.
“I want to thank my legal team for their constant work in the case and according to the direction of the Supreme Court on how unlawful prison sentence should be remedied, we will now look at the Commonwealth trialer-General to act quickly to correct this injustice , “He said.
