Counsel Pursues Judge In Spencer Hearing In Federal Court

February 14, 2011

In an explosive directions hearing in the Federal Court, Sydney on Friday 11 February, Peter King, barrister for Peter Spencer opened proceedings by pursuing Justice Emmett for bias in his handling the case Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia, bringing him to task for his comments in a hearing on another matter heard before the Federal Court on 3 February 2011. On this previous occasion Peter King had cited the High Court decision on Spencer’s case as relevant to that case, to which Justice Emmett replied that he did “DID NOT UNDERSTAND” the High Court finding of September 2010 in Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia. The Full Bench of the High Court finding in September was that Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia “should not have been summarily dismissed in the Federal Court in March 2009 on the grounds that Mr Spencer had ‘no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceedings’ (under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act). The Full Bench judges unanimously held that the Spencer case was not considered suitable for the application of section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act and this finding is now considered an important precedent in legal circles. As Justice Emmett has been hearing the Spencer matter since 2007, his statement of 3 February was a stupefying demonstration of hubris.

In rounding off his questioning, Peter King requested that Justice Emmett disqualify himself and step aside from Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia, and that the matter be referred to a Registrar for further hearings (which would be appropriate). In response, Justice Emmett stated that he would appoint another judge to the matter.

Following Kings courageous stand against Justice Emmett, Emmett back-flipped with a remarkable change of attitude towards the legal teams representing Spencer on the one hand and the Commonwealth on the other (compared to previous hearings dating right back to 2007). This included denying a (false) statement by Lenihan, barrister for the Australian Government Solicitor that Peter King had agreed to the words “unjust enrichment” being deleted from Spencer’s statement of claim.

The substantive outcomes from Friday’s hearing were:

• Spencer’s statement of claim has been fully accepted by the Commonwealth
• Spencer is required to file the categories of documents sought for discovery within 14 days
• The next hearing in the Federal Court has been set for the 11 March.

All in all, a good day for Peter Spencer and Peter King as bit by bit, they seek justice by closing in on uncovering the liturgy of deceit and collusion that led to the imposition of the Native Vegetation legislation by the States at the behest of the Commonwealth Government in the early 2000 years. Peter Spencer has also pointed out that a wide range of historical and on-going developments in the Federal Court could be exposed to the public if the transcripts were made available to plaintives (such as Spencer). They are currently only available at great cost – which can typically only be met by Corporations involved in Federal Court cases.

ENDS

© Scoop Media