Last we visited developments related to the Fidge v Pfizer case, we had a long look at ambitious arguments arranged to convince Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer to uphold a constitutional complaint against Justice Helen Rofe. Rofe had summarily dismissed Dr. Julian Fidge’s application for injunctive relief under the Gene Technology Act on 1 March 2024. The judgement is here and my post summarising the case is here.

Fidge was found to lack standing and the case did not proceed. As I mentioned at the time, this was the latest failure of case design by solicitors Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam, and retired barrister Julian Gillespie. By 22 March Ashby-Koppens and PJ O’Brien and Associates had filed the constitutional complaint with the Chief Justice, alleging Justice Rofe had concealed “her connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry, before dismissing a case to Pfizer’s advantage”. Reading the complaint, one is struck by both the tenuous nature and the sheer range of the arguments put forward to establish motive, as alleged by the complainants.

Justice Rofe omitted to disclose her role as a barrister acting for Pfizer in patent law cases around 20 years before; hence the “connections to Pfizer”. Yet her connections to “the pharmaceutical industry” rely on one following a convoluted web of associations, that are presented by the complainants as potentially nefarious only through the lens of conspiracy theory thinking. In fact the reader must also accept there are inherent flaws and a predisposition to deception associated with scientific and medical research per se, and indeed any acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines and/or COVID public health initiatives.

On 27 June a writ of mandamus was lodged on behalf of Dr. Julian Fidge at the Brisbane registry of the High Court of Australia. The defendant named was Chief Justice Debra Mortimer. As we’ve observed before, such a writ commands or dictates that an individual or government department carry out a duty that falls within their remit. We saw this in the AVN case targeting the Secretary of the Department of Health to use his powers under the Therapeutic Goods Act to cancel or suspend the provisional registration of three Covid-19 vaccines, including the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v Secretary, Department of Health [2022] FCA 320). They too were found to lack standing.

Clearly Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens feel that three months is long enough to wait. Justice Mortimer has not commented and Gillespie writes that they have argued in “countless correspondence with her office ever since the Complaint was lodged with her”, pointing out their argument. It basically runs as follows:

Helen Rofe did not disclose her prior relationship with Pfizer and thus cancelled out her own judicial authority. This invalidated her 1 March ruling. Justice Mortimer should have informed her of this, Gillespie reasons. He has also peddled ad nauseam his “not a judge” theory. So, let’s look at this. Gillespie cites the High Court ruling QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (May 2023), paragraph 26. He quotes:

The question arising in the circumstances of the present case falls to be resolved at the level of principle within the framework established in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Foundational to that framework are two propositions. One is that impartiality is an indispensable aspect of the exercise of judicial power. The other is that “[b]ias, whether actual or apprehended, connotes the absence of impartiality” … an actuality or apprehension of bias is accordingly inherently jurisdictional in that it negates judicial power.

With the negation of judicial power Justice Rofe is apparently “not a judge”. But let’s read that paragraph again, with all the text and a minor change in emphasis:

The question arising in the circumstances of the present case falls to be resolved at the level of principle within the framework established in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Foundational to that framework are two propositions. One is that impartiality is an indispensable aspect of the exercise of judicial power. The other is that “[b]ias, whether actual or apprehended, connotes the absence of impartiality”. Leaving to one side exceptional circumstances of waiver or necessity, an actuality or apprehension of bias is accordingly inherently jurisdictional in that it negates judicial power.

Exceptional circumstances of waiver or necessity. Could there be circumstances of necessity? I’ve no idea at this point, but it seems relevant. Gillespie assumes he and others so inclined deserve the attention of one of Australia’s most senior judges. Despite being wrong five times in two years, they now seek to force the hand of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. He accuses Chief Justice Mortimer of not “properly investigating Helen Rofe, her workmate”.

Another key reason to take this position is the belief that the ruling by Justice Rofe on 1 March is “unappealable”, yet Chief Justice Mortimer “wants to see us appeal the 1 March decision despite Dr Fidge’s legal team telling her that decision is unappealable”. The logic for this also stems from the “not a judge” mantra. The Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear a judicial decision from a single judge. As Gillespie alleges Justice Rofe negated her judicial authority, the case did not have a single judge and they “have no decision vested with judicial authority”. Thus, the Gillespie contention is that it follows that the case is “unappealable”.

Finally, this entire manufactured affair provides an opportunity for chasing donations and to promote Australia’s anti-science senators in attacking COVID-19 vaccines. An initiative of Children’s Health Defense Australia Chapter is Section 72. The website seeks to direct devotees to lobby MPs to act in response to the constitutional complaint against Justice Rofe, and to date claims almost 9,000 have “taken action”. It also claims without any evidence that, “there is also the possibility other members of the same court are implicated in this misconduct of Justice Rofe”. Also:

Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent all intend to support the Complaint being dealt with properly by Parliament under Section 72(ii) of the Constitution…

Section 72(ii) of The Australian Constitution states:

The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament–

  (ii.)   Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity: 

The proposed aim of this constitutional complaint has been to push for Justice Rofe’s removal from the Federal Court. Allegations of corruption and COVID conspiracy theories shape the thinking of those involved. It will be interesting to see what response if any the complaint elicits and how the recent High Court filing targeting Chief Justice Mortimer for “not doing her job” plays out.

This particular anti-vax legal saga is likely far from over.