In the last post I ran through the finding by Justice Helen Rofe in the case of Fidge v Pfizer. This was the third case brought by individuals and legal representatives with strong anti-vaccination links; both ideological and active. The applicant, Dr. Julian Fidge was found to lack standing. The case was dismissed.

As I previously began to discuss, within a day of the ruling, a follower of Julian Gillespie prompted him to do some digging into Justice Helen Rofe’s career as a barrister. You see, dear reader, as a barrister Helen Rofe had represented Pfizer in cases of intellectual property and patent law between 2003 and 2006. To the antivax mindset, this was proof of corruption because she did not reveal this prior to hearing the case. As a perceived “conflict of interest” existed, Rofe should have recused herself or allowed parties to request her recusal, they argued.

Now again, I am not a lawyer and I cannot qualify the importance of the duty of disclosure in this instance. But my thoughts on this development are straightforward. Is there any evidence Justice Rofe could not have acted impartially, or did not act impartially? Or rather, did her experience make her an ideal choice to hear the case. In 1988 Helen Rofe completed a Bachelor of Science with a major in genetics. Justice Rofe states on LinkedIn:

Prior to being appointed to the Federal Court I was a commercial barrister and Queen’s Counsel specialising in science and technology related matters.

Constitutional Complaint

On 22 March 2024, PJ O’Brien and Associates filed a constitutional complaint against Justice Rofe citing not only her prior work as a barrister but also “affiliations and extended family”. According to the media release (below) Justice Rofe “concealed her connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry”.

Constitutional Complaint Media Release

I should point out that contact for the complaint, Katie Ashby-Koppens, is on the steering committee for the World Council for Health (WCH). The WCH is renowned for promoting misinformation linking COVID-19 vaccines with death. Wikipedia describes the group:

The World Council for Health is a pseudo-medical organisation dedicated to spreading misinformation to discourage COVID-19 vaccination, and promoting fake COVID-19 treatments.

The organization’s online appearance is that of a mainstream health organization. It appears to have been formed in September 2021 and its published leadership contains people which an Australian Associated Press fact check described as “figures who have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories”.

Now, better equiped to understand motivation, let us examine the complaint.

The accusations in the complaint are impressive to say the least. They require substantial “reasonable assumptions”, both numerous and convoluted. This reasoning begins by pointing out that Justice Rofe has majored in genetics, and the Fidge case involved genetics, genetically modified organisms and allegations that mRNA vaccines are GMOs. Also, we’re reminded that Justice Rofe held prior membership of the Bolton Clarke Human Research and Ethics Committee. Her cousin Sir Andrew Grimwade supported research there with grant monies from the Felton Trust. He was a member of the Felton Bequest for 50 years, and served 19 years as chairman of the bequests committee. He was a guest at the ceremony to welcome Justice Rofe to the federal court. Rofe “enjoyed a good relationship with Sir Andrew” sharing his “interest in science and scientific research”.

Sir Andrew was the great-grandson of Frederick Shepherd Grimwade who, “founded the Grimwade family pharmaceutical industry fortune in Australia”. The complaint goes on to state, Sir Andrew also “served as the honorary President of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute (WEHI) for 14 years before retiring in 1992″ and had been on the Board since 1963. He “appears” to “have maintained a close relationship with WEHI right up until his death”, purportedly evidenced by a public guestbook obituary from WEHI.

As Australia’s leading biomedical research institute, the WEHI “may have” received billions of dollars from Australian governments. The WEHI have received $30 million from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna have received six times that from the same Foundation, which has also promoted COVID-19 products. It’s “also reasonable to assume the WEHI supports all of the efforts of Mr Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in respect of their support of the COVID-19 products of Pfizer and Moderna.” WEHI received $13.5 million in Australian government funding for “COVID related projects”.

In mere paragraphs we’ve leapt from the failure of Justice Rofe to reveal that she had represented Pfizer some 18 to 21 years ago, to the apparent significance of her cousin’s commitment to scientific research and the involvement of the premier anti-vax enemy, Bill Gates. The complaint continues, targeting the Australian and Victorian governments’ partnership with Moderna. “It is reasonable to assume that the WEHI stands to possibly receive significant monies” from this partnership. The Victorian government has given $600,000 to WEHI as part of mRNA Victoria. “It is entirely reasonable, in light of enduring family ties and her Honour’s own scientific background and interests”, that Justice Rofe has “long been aware of the sources of funding… and the public statements in support of mRNA technologies” made by state and Commonwealth ministers and the Prime Minister.

The complaint rolls on in alleging that affiliations “reaching back four decades for her Honour personally, and over a century when extended family interests of great significance are factored in”, in fact mean a reasonable observer would accept J Rofe holds “Big Pharmaceutical interests, both domestic and international”. More so, Justice Rofe has “meaningfully and significantly assisted to protect, grow, and further establish in Australia [the interests of Pfizer]”. It is further alleged extended family ties nefariously influenced Justice Rofe’s decision-making to favour funding for WEHI, mRNA technology and “further significant sums of research monies” for both, as they’re supported by The Australian PM. Finally we reach paragraphs 42 and 43:

A reasonable observer can conclude from the above that it was more likely than not her Honour would seek to see the science and technology promoted by Pfizer and Moderna, and Australian governments, that stand to significantly benefit medical research institutes like the WEHI, survive and flourish in Australia.

Judicial proceedings of the type brought by Dr Fidge would, if successful, strike a damning blow against all the above interests, and much more.

The complaint continues with Case Implications, outlining what they believe would happen if Fidge had won the case. It not only reads like an anti-vaxxer day dream, yet reveals in black and white, the unabashed sabotage of vaccine public health initiatives and related vendettas, that this group deems justified. Australia would see injunctions and “serious criminal charges” for Pfizer and Moderna. Initiation of investigations into the “operations, processes and personnel of the OGTR, Department of Health and Aged Care” and (of course), “In particular the former Secretary of Health, Brendan Murphy due to his being responsible for provisional approval [of COVID-19 vaccines]”. In addition would be initiation of an examination to determine if the absence of GMO licences led to failure to provide proper informed consent, and medical negligence implications.

There would also be potential civil liability in the Commonwealth government for failing to enforce GMO licensing, and civil liability for Pfizer and Moderna for failing to undertake GMO licensing. The complaint also refers to “possible confirmation” of injuries and deaths caused by genetically modified properties of mRNA vaccines. Yet there is no body of work identifying such adverse outcomes. It is a misinformed notion linked to the same suite of decades old research, mRNA-critical pre-print papers, animal studies, SARS-CoV-2 infection studies and related articles that buoy this anti-vaccine belief. I’m not criticising the research, but strenuously reject the invented link to “injuries and deaths” fabricated by the anti-vaccine lobby.

Another implication of a Fidge victory, is vaccine hesitancy due to a loss of trust in Australian health authorities. Yes, they’re serious. However, vaccine hesitancy is in fact due to constant misinformation spread about vaccines, by groups such as this. Then on p. 13 we read the implication under 44 J:

The necessity to initiate many forms of clinical studies to assess the real world damage, disease, or fatal outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, and any observed medium-to-long term disease and adverse reproductive health outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, for those Australian citizens who were not informed they were receiving GMOs.

Astonishing. The complainants apparently believe an entire body of clinical research would evolve following a Fidge victory. One may ask, quite rightly, as to why such research into this vaccine induced disaster is not already underway. The answer being of course, that the “damage, disease and fatal outcomes” do not exist.

We then read that the complaints provided list is not exhaustive and that the implications suggested, pose severe and long lasting reputational damage and financial consequences “for all Australian political parties and their lead members in power throughout the COVID period”. Particularly for those introducing Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

They finalise the implications by contending that these, or other implications not even listed, may have served to motivate Justice Helen Rofe to dismiss the case brought by Julian Fidge. The complaint then moves onto Judicial Conduct, and examines the Guide To Judicial Conduct with respect to J Rofe’s “failure to discharge her duty of disclosure concerning her prior dealings with Pfizer.” The complaint submits in paragraph 48:

As detailed under the section above…, her Honour Justice Rofe had significant prior dealings with Pfizer when a barrister, and through her science learnings and the interests of her extended family, significant professional and personal interest in seeing the continued success of those institutions her extended family and science colleagues had been involved with, and perhaps continue to be involved with.

The remainder of the complaint utilises the Guide to Judicial Conduct and the various summations of active bias that the complainants allege motivated J Rofe’s decision-making, in an attempt to argue she is in breach of sections of the Guide. Focusing on the principle of Impartiality and sections such as Personal Relationships, the complaint references seven “slightly different positions [reinforcing] the same common-sense view”:

Where there is a prior relationship with a party, the judicial duty is to disqualify oneself or disclose the relationship before all the parties. If in doubt about disqualification, disclose the relationship before all the parties and invite submissions.

Again, impartiality should be determined by “a fair-minded lay observer who might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not [be impartial]”. Whilst perception of bias and conflict of interest sufficient for disqualification from a case “is to be judged by the perception of a reasonable well-informed observer”. Parties should be informed by the judge of facts which might give rise to perceptions of bias, but the judge must decide on the appropriateness to sit on a case.

Conclusion

For this author, looking through the complaint is like reading any text peppered with the red flags of anti-vaccine beliefs combined with an entrenched distrust of medical, legal and government authority. I can see nothing wrong with the legal team of Julian Fidge raising concerns over Justice Rofe’s failure to disclose her past history representing Pfizer. I don’t believe there’s much substance to it but respect their right to raise concerns. However, the constitutional complaint itself relies on typical anti-vax tropes such as distrusting J Rofe’s respect for science and research, and her affiliations with individuals or organisations linked to vaccine technology and/or its funding. Indeed the complaint made a number of connections that whilst exhaustive, are difficult to respect, much less accept. To argue that J Rofe acted with corrupt intent, primarily to avoid the dawn of the post Fidge-victory era as the complaint described it, is simply fantastic.

I can only conclude by wishing Justice Helen Rofe all the very best.

Professional Conduct Rules for Lawyers

As a footnote, it’s worth pausing to consider that lawyers and solicitors are also subject to professional conduct rules. Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter O’Brien & Associates must keep in mind their duty to the court and the administration of justice.

Lacking professional distance from your client (or their cause) risks distracting you from this duty, which is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty. Your objectivity, your independence and your forensic judgement – on which the court relies – may be reduced.

The duty to avoid any compromise to integrity and professional independence:

Your integrity and trustworthiness are fundamental to your reputation as a lawyer and to your relationships with clients and other parties in the justice system. When a lawyer fails to act with integrity because their professional boundaries are compromised, the integrity of the justice system as a whole is undermined.

Wise words.