Snapshot
- The recent High Court decision in Commonwealth v Stradford involved an extraordinary set of facts concerning the conduct of Judge Salvatore Vasta of the Federal Circuit Court. The decision was the first time the High Court considered the scope of common law immunity of a judge of an inferior court.
- The purpose of judicial immunity is to facilitate the independent performance of the judicial function free from the spectre of litigation and to enhance the finality of judgments, quelling legal controversies. As such, there is no justification for differentiating between inferior and superior courts.
- The decision highlights the need for a more independent, transparent, fair and robust accountability process for complaints about the conduct of federal judges.
On 12 February 2025, in Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym); Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym); His Honour Judge Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) [2025] HCA 3 (‘Commonwealth v Stradford’) the High Court held that, under the common law of Australia, all judges of courts referred to in section 71 of the Constitution – including superior and inferior courts across the federation – were immune from liability for acts done in the exercise, or purported exercise, of their judicial function. The case was an appeal from the first award of damages against a sitting judicial officer in Australia and the first time the High Court considered the scope of common law immunity of a judge of an inferior court.
The decision involved an extraordinary set of immediate facts concerning the conduct of Judge Salvatore Vasta of the (then) Federal Circuit Court in relation to Mr Stradford. But it must also be understood in a wider context, about patterns of concerning judicial conduct by Judge Vasta and others, and advocacy for a more independent, transparent, fair and robust accountability process for complaints about the conduct of federal judges.
