“If that is so, and the unjust treatment has caused harm to the victim, it may be that one or other of the legislative schemes for the making of an ex gratia or ‘act of grace’ payment may compensate the victim.”
The judges noted that Stradford’s time in custody was “distressing”.
“He witnessed and was subjected to acts of violence. He experienced suicidal thoughts,” they wrote.
Stradford’s lawyers had told the High Court that arguments against the judge’s liability meant “in cases of this kind, victims of even the most egregious torts should have no remedy”.
In their judgment, the judges noted that the purpose of the immunity was the same for judges of all courts.
“That purpose is to facilitate the independent performance of the judicial function free from the spectre of litigation … judicial immunity does not exist for the benefit of individual judges,” they found.
Loading
In the original case, in August 2018, Vasta ordered Stradford to disclose gambling account statements.
The proceedings were adjourned and, following a brief hearing before another judge, returned to Vasta in December 2018.
Wrongly believing the other judge had already decided Stradford was in contempt, Vasta sentenced the father of two to six months’ jail for disobeying orders to provide financial documents.
Stradford appealed and six days later, Vasta conceded he had erred and ordered his immediate release.
In February 2019, the Full Court of the Family Court overturned the sentence.
Stradford sued Vasta for false imprisonment.
In an August 2023 judgment, Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney awarded compensation including $50,000 in exemplary damages payable by Vasta “to deter any repetition of such a thoroughly unacceptable abuse of judicial power”.
Wigney also found the Commonwealth and Queensland to be vicariously liable for court, police and correctional officers following Judge Vasta’s orders.
In allowing the appeals, the High Court set aside Wigney’s decision and dismissed Stradford’s proceedings.
AAP
Read the full article here
