Judge on trial … Federal Court proceedings against Salvatore Vasta … Poor judicial conduct runs in the blood … Ancient cases examined during trial of the FCFC judge for abuse of process … Max Shanahan reports on the hearing
Based in Queensland, Sal of the FCFC, is the subject of a $2 million civil suit for false imprisonment and abuse of process from the pseudonymous Mr Stradford, a man jailed on a phantom contempt charge during a Family Court hearing in 2019 because he allegedly failed to produce financial records on time.
Vasta had previously admitted to the “rather inexplicable mistake” of believing that a prior judge in the same proceedings had found Stradford in contempt, and saw it as his role to dish out punishment to the unfortunate Mr Stradford.
Justice Michael Wigney, hearing the case, observed that, notwithstanding the mistake, “it is very peculiar … for a judge to sentence for contempt when another judge has made that finding”.
During the original Circuit Court hearing, Vasta repeatedly cut off and berated Stradford. Herzfeld argued that Vasta’s interjections constituted actual pre-judgment of the contempt sentence, pointing to various inelegant expressions such as “that’s rubbish” and “bring your toothbrush” as evidence that the judge was intent on using the threat of a 12-month prison term to force the litigant to capitulate and accept a resolution to the dispute.
Stradford spent six nights in prison on suicide watch – during which time, he alleged, other inmates tried to strangle and sexually assault him – before the full bench stayed Vasta’s orders, finding:
“The processes employed by the primary judge were so devoid of procedural fairness … and the reasons for the judgment so lacking in engagement with the issues of fact and law to be applied, that to permit the order for imprisonment to stand would be an affront to justice.”
Stradford also gave evidence of his experience in Vasta’s court and in jail.
The Fulls have not been kind to Salvatore, overturning him at least 15 times since his appointment by Bookshelves Brandis in 2015. In one instance, in overturning an order which saw a party again imprisoned for contempt, the full bench described Vasta’s behavior as “egregious,” and coloured by “excessive and unwarranted interventions” while being “openly hostile … disparaging and sarcastic”.
Stradford’s personal claim against Vasta was accompanied by a wrongful imprisonment claim against the Commonwealth, whose counsel was more than willing to throw the judge under the bus:
“… a lot of the submissions made against the Commonwealth are really damages attributable to Judge Vasta.”
The case will turn on Wigney’s interpretation of the long-held principle that “judges … are immune from liability when acting within jurisdiction”.
Herzfeld argued that the orders made by Vasta were so prejudiced and unfair that they exceed jurisdiction, relying on an old English case, Price v Messenger:
“… it is as much a defect of jurisdiction if the judge grants an improper warrant in a case where he had jurisdiction, as if he had no jurisdiction.”
As for Sal himself, he continues to hear matters at the FCFC having been under the supervision of a “mentor”, after being relieved from all his administrative duties.
The Law Council of Australia had previously flagged a referral to Federal Parliament, and an adverse finding in this case might revive that call.
Indeed, referrals to Parliament run in the blood – Vasta’s father, Angelo, remains the only judge in Australia to have been removed from office by a vote of parliament.
The trial involving the latest Vasta has been adjourned to allow the Commonwealth to come up with some constitutional arguments.
Justinian’s previous reports on Salvatore Vasta …
Sal sitting on the sorry stool
Letter from Sal
A year’s worth of golden threads