Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta wins High Court bid for immunity from being sued

The man wrongly jailed by Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta in 2018 has described the High Court ruling that judges are immune from being sued as a "dark day".

Judge Vasta took the case to the High Court after the man, who was wrongly jailed during a family property dispute, sued him for the mistake.

The man also sued the Queensland government and the Commonwealth, for more than $300,000 after he spent several days in jail in December 2018.

Their appeals were also upheld in today's High Court ruling.

Man sought compensation from judge, government 

The saga began when Judge Vasta jailed the man for 12 months for contempt of court, for not providing some required documents.

But after a week in custody, which included time in the Brisbane Correctional Centre, he was released.

Judge Vasta himself ordered a stay order pending an appeal against the sentence.

At the time, the judge admitted to errors in finding the man was in contempt of court, and in jailing him.

In February 2019, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia allowed the appeal.

That cleared the way for the man to seek compensation for false imprisonment, from not just Judge Vasta, but also the Queensland government and the Commonwealth — both of which the man said were vicariously liable for the actions of the officers who detained him.

The man was later awarded damages when Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney found Judge Vasta had acted outside his jurisdiction and was not protected from judicial immunity.  

Justice Wigney described the hearing as a "parody," saying Judge Vasta had found the man in contempt without finding any of the facts he needed to before sending him to jail.

The state of Queensland and the Commonwealth were also targeted in the man's case.

The state said there was no liability attached to its officers who were following orders.

The Commonwealth also defended the actions of the guards who initially detained the man at court.

But the Federal Court found in the man's favour, prompting Judge Vasta and the Commonwealth and Queensland to lodge an appeal in the High Court.    

Today the High Court allowed all of the appeals, singling out the issue of immunity.

"Although there are differences of significance between inferior courts and superior courts, there is no justification for differentiating between the scope of the immunity from civil suit afforded to judges of all courts," the majority judgement said.

"This is so because the purpose of the immunity is the same for judges of all courts.

In a statement in response to today's decision, the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, took aim at the consequences for himself and others like him. 

“While respecting the High Court has decided to change the common law of Australia to protect all judges and officers working at their direction, I feel it is a dark day for people like me who suffer as a result of the many and egregious acts of a judge, who then enjoys absolute immunity from any consequences," he said. 

Freedom to judge without legal threat 'essential for our justice system'

Even if today’s ruling had gone the other way it may have ended up being academic, after the Federal Parliament changed the law in the wake of the compensation order.

That was after it became clear judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) had been in an uncertain position as the only "inferior" Federal Court, where the protections for judges did not enjoy the same level of immunity as other judges.

At the time, the Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the new law would not mean judges would be unaccountable.

"The bill will not affect a person's right to challenge judicial decisions through the appeal process or the ability of parliament to consider the removal of a judge from office under our Constitution on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity,"  Mr Dreyfus said in his second reading speech.

But he said the judiciary needs to retain its independence.

"It's essential for our justice system that judges are free to decide matters before them in accordance with their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law without the threat of being sued," Mr Dreyfus said.