Instructions to Return Contempt of Court Interlocutory Application

Phillip Sweeney made this Freedom of Information request to Federal Court of Australia

The request was refused by Federal Court of Australia.

From: Phillip Sweeney

Delivered

Dear Federal Court of Australia,

On the 31 July 2019 the Australian Financial Review published an article of proceedings afoot in the Federal Court NSD1654/2018 which was not a fair and accurate reporting of these proceedings or on an affidavit lodged by one of the parties to these proceedings.

The article had the sensationalist title of “Serial pest hijacks ASIC’s case against NAB over fees scandal”. This publication enlivens Section 36A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and is clearly a contempt before the face of the Court.

An even more scandalous and completely untrue statement was published on Twitter to promote the printed article.

An Interlocutory Application dated 16 September 2019 was drafted in accordance with Enforcement, Endorsement and Contempt Practice Note (GPN-ENE) along with a Statement of Charge dated 16 September 2019 and a supporting Affidavit affirmed on 16 September 2019 which contained Exhibits of the offending publications.

On the 19 September 2019, no Order was made with respect to the Interlocutory Application by the presiding Judge.

However these documents were returned attached to a letter dated 20 September 2019 which only made reference to the removal of five earlier Affidavits that had been removed from the Court file by an Order pursuant to Rule 2.28(1)(b)(i) as a direct response to the articles published in contempt in the face of the Court.

The letter signed only in the first name of a Senior Coordinator, Service Centre, Federal Court of Australia was titled “RE: Interlocutory Application and supporting documents”.

However, as mentioned above no Order had been made with respect to any of these documents.

This junior member of the District Registry was clearly acting under the instructions of others to as it would seem to “get rid of these documents”.

The documents I seek are copies of any emails, phone logs, Orders or other documents related to the receival of these documents, the decision not to file the Affidavit affirmed on 16 September 2019 and the instructions to a junior staff member to return the Interlocutory Application and supporting documents when no Order had been made with respect to these documents.

It is now a matter of public interest as to why no action has been taken to date with respect to what is clearly a contempt in the face of the court by way of publication as well as a contravention of Section 36A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which must be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, James Leslie Bain Allsop AO, once all the evidence has been gathered.

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

Link to this

From: External FOI
Federal Court of Australia


Attachment 2019 10 11 Acknowledgement of Request 29.9.2019 s.pdf
488K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Sweeney,

Please find a letter acknowledging receipt of your request attached to this email.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: External FOI
Federal Court of Australia


Attachment 2019 10 18 FOI Decision Sweeney Phillip 29.9.2019.pdf
883K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Sweeney,

Please find, attached to this email, correspondence in relation to your FOI request.

Kind regards

FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Phillip Sweeney

Delivered

Dear Federal Court of Australia,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Federal Court of Australia's handling of my FOI request 'Instructions to Return Contempt of Court Interlocutory Application'.

The responses from the Federal Court indicate that junior staff who only uses their first names such as "Megan" run the show as far as document and evidence management and administration is concerned at the Federal Court in Sydney.

On the 19 September 2019, Justice Yates ordered that 5 Affidavits affirmed on 1 May, 1 August, 5 August, 21 August and 26 August 2019 be removed from the Court file, following a classic example of disparaging the Whistleblower by journalist James Frost of the Australian Financial Review who labelled someone whom a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal described as a determined Whistleblower, as a "Serial Pest"!

No order was made with respect to an Interlocutory application and a Statement of Charge dated 16 September 2019 and supporting Affidavit affirmed on 16 September 2019 related to the Contempt in the face of the Court by Mr Frost.

Therefore junior staffer "Megan" cannot claim that she is acting on the Orders of Justice Yates.

Someone must have given an instruction to "Megan" to "get rid" of the evidence of the Contempt in the face of the Court and evidence of Scandalising the Court by Mr Frost included as Annexures PVS52 and PCS53 in the Affidavit affirmed on 16 September 2019 that was not one of the five Affidavits covered by the Order of Justice Yates.

Therefore there must be a record of the instruction to junior staffer "Megan". This is not a routine case for the Federal Court by any means.

Otherwise, it would appear that "Megan" was off on a frolic of her own to dispose of evidence that relates to not just one case of Contempt of Court, but two two cases of Contempt of Court - one by James Frost and the other by ASIC.

It is now a matter of public interest that a Journalist can dictate how a supposed "independent" member of the Judiciary can run a case before him or her and to exclude evidence of a Contempt of Court by ASIC as well as evidence of a Contempt of Court by that journalist.

Especially when that person is seeking to uphold a previous ruling from the Federal Court itself in VID 323 of 2011 and where the Applicant, ASIC, is in contempt of the Federal Court for failing to honour the undertaking given before the Honourable Justice Kenny.

This application for an Internal review is a necessary step before I appeal this matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The treatment of a Whistleblower by the Federal Court who is seeking to ensure the widows of his former work colleagues receive their lawful death benefits in the form of a survivorship pension is now a matter of public interest.

The failure to properly administer evidence and interlocutory applications lodged with the Federal Court unless properly explained will have a tendency to bring the administration of justice in the Federal Court into disrepute.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

Link to this

From: External FOI
Federal Court of Australia


Attachment FOI Internal Review Decision Sweeney Phillip 26.9.2019 request FINAL.pdf
298K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Sweeney,

Please find, attached to the email, correspondence in relation to your FOI request.

Regards,

John Mathieson | Deputy Principal Registrar
Principal Registry | Federal Court of Australia
Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney NSW

Link to this

From: External FOI
Federal Court of Australia


Attachment FOI Internal Review Decision Sweeney Phillip 29.9.2019 request FINAL.pdf
332K Download View as HTML


UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Sweeney,

Please find, attached to this email, correspondence in relation to your FOI request.

Regards,

John Mathieson | Deputy Principal Registrar
Principal Registry | Federal Court of Australia
Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney NSW

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Federal Court of Australia only: