Australian judge who wrongly jailed father during divorce case won’t face consequences, high court finds | Queensland

A judge who wrongly jailed a father-of-two during routine divorce proceedings should be protected from any personal consequences for his actions, the high court has ruled, despite the episode being described as an “affront to justice” and a “parody”.

The high court’s ruling on Wednesday restores broad-based protections to all federal judges and shields them from being sued for wrong decisions, and overturns a 2023 decision that shook Australia’s legal fraternity and prompted urgent calls for reform.

In a landmark decision in August 2023, sitting federal circuit court judge Salvatore Vasta was successfully sued by a man he had wrongly imprisoned during a relatively minor divorce case to carve up a couple’s former assets.

Vasta repeatedly threatened to jail Stradford – not his real name – during the proceedings because he believed he had not divulged all of his financial information. Stradford, who did not have a lawyer supporting him, was at one point told he would be jailed if he kept speaking over the judge and was warned to comply with Vasta’s disclosure orders or “bring your toothbrush”.

Vasta later jailed him for 12 months for contempt of court, to be suspended after six months, and Stradford spent seven days in custody before another court intervened to free him, saying that allowing the imprisonment order to stand would be an “affront to justice”.

Stradford has described his time in prison as harrowing, saying he was subjected to a rape threat, assault, and suffered suicidal ideation.

He later sued Vasta personally in the federal court for false imprisonment.

Judges are typically protected from civil action for what they do on the bench, a concept known as judicial immunity.

But the federal court found that Vasta had made a series of basic errors, exceeded his jurisdiction, and engaged in a “gross and obvious irregularity of 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 awarded Stradford $309,450 in damages.

The decision shocked the nation’s peak legal groups. The Australian Bar Association and Law Society called for urgent reform and the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, quickly introduced legislation to ensure all federal judges were properly protected from personal liability for their conduct on the bench.

The case was also appealed to the high court, which delivered judgment on Wednesday.

It agreed the court hearing in which Vasta jailed Stradford was a “parody” and that his order to jail the man was invalid.

But it also found he was entitled to judicial immunity, regardless of his status as an inferior court judge.

Judges like Vasta, the high court said, “are immune from civil suit arising out of acts done in the exercise, or purported exercise, of their judicial function or capacity”.

“As Judge Vasta purported to perform such a function in convicting and sentencing Mr Stradford, he is not liable to Mr Stradford for false imprisonment,” the court said in a summary of its judgment.

It also found the guards and security officers who executed Vasta’s order to imprison Vasta were not liable.

“Each of the Queensland police officers and the Queensland correctional officers had a legal duty to enforce or execute orders or warrants made or issued by the federal circuit court,” the court said.

“The MSS guards also had a duty to enforce an oral order made by Judge Vasta requiring them to detain Mr Stradford. There was nothing apparent on the face of the orders made and warrant issued by Judge Vasta which suggested they were beyond his power to make.”