GMO Case - A Judicial Crisis

High Court of Australia Writ of Mandamus Against Debra Mortimer, Chief Justice of the Federal Court.

Jun 29, 2024

Above: Debra Mortimer, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia

Late in the afternoon of Friday, June 29th 2024, Dr. Julian Fidge’s legal team did on his behalf, lodge a Writ of Mandamus in the Brisbane registry of the High Court of Australia, naming Debra Mortimer, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, as the defendant. A Writ of Mandamus seeks to compel a decision-maker to fulfil their duties, and in this case, it is alleged that Chief Justice Mortimer is intentionally neglecting her duty by failing to properly investigate a complaint against Judge Helen Rofe, who presided over the GMO proceedings.

This writ illuminates the current dysfunction within the legal system, particularly in the context of the GMO proceedings, and touches on issues of global significance, questioning whether the truth will be seen and heard amidst the actions of certain judicial figures in Australia.

On March 22, a complaint was filed against Judge Helen Rofe, which was to be handled by Chief Justice Mortimer. The complaint centred on whether Judge Rofe failed to disclose her significant prior relationship with Pfizer. This disclosure is crucial as it could negate her judicial authority if proven. The process of investigation seemed straightforward: determining if Judge Rofe failed to disclose this relationship and, if so, confirming that this non-disclosure voided her judicial authority from the moment of the misconduct.

Above: Helen Rofe, Justice of the Federal Court of Australia

If Judge Rofe indeed concealed her relationship with Pfizer, this act would disqualify her from the case, and any subsequent decisions made by her, including the March 1 decision dismissing Dr. Fidge’s standing in the GMO proceedings, would be legally invalid. This argument finds support in the High Court of Australia’s decision in QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, and Multicultural Affairs, which emphasizes that bias, whether actual or apprehended, inherently negates judicial power.

The gravity of this issue is underscored by the intentional concealment of critical information, which not only disqualifies Judge Rofe but also nullifies her authority from the outset of her involvement in the case. This means that her decision on March 1 holds no legal weight. Despite this clear legal principle, Chief Justice Mortimer has remained silent on the matter, refusing to acknowledge the implications of Judge Rofe’s misconduct.

The Chief Justice’s acknowledgment is vital because it would validate that the March 1 decision is unappealable, as it was not made by a valid judicial authority. This recognition would also necessitate addressing Judge Rofe’s misconduct, potentially leading to a Commission of Inquiry and her removal from office under Section 72(ii) of the Constitution.

The reluctance of Chief Justice Mortimer to address this issue is perceived as a protective measure for her colleague, raising concerns about the integrity and accountability of the judiciary. This situation has now escalated to the High Court, with Dr. Fidge seeking intervention to compel Chief Justice Mortimer to fulfil her duty.

Above: “In Bed with the Devil”

The unfolding events highlight a significant failure in the Australian justice system, where judicial officers seem to be acting contrary to their roles. This case has drawn attention to the need for accountability and transparency within the judiciary, urging Australians to inform their MPs and Senators about their desire for a Commission of Inquiry into Judge Rofe’s conduct. The goal is to ensure that justice is served and that the truth is not suppressed by judicial inaction.

The hope is that the High Court will resolve this matter swiftly, allowing the GMO proceedings to restart with a new judge. This case is of global importance, especially for those affected by the decisions made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It raises critical questions about the role of the judiciary in protecting public interests and ensuring that justice prevails, even against powerful entities like Pfizer and Moderna. The situation reflects broader concerns about the transparency and accountability of judicial actions and their impact on public trust in the legal system.

A significant loss of public trust and confidence

The situation described in the GMO case can indeed be characterized as a judicial crisis, a term that refers to a severe disruption in the functioning of the judiciary, marked by a significant loss of public trust and confidence in the legal system due to multiple factors that profoundly undermine the credibility and integrity of the judiciary.

The allegations against Judge Helen Rofe, accused of failing to disclose her prior relationship with Pfizer, and the subsequent perceived inaction by Chief Justice Debra Mortimer to investigate these claims, have created a scenario where the judiciary is seen as potentially biased and unaccountable, forming the foundation of a judicial crisis with several critical implications.

At the heart of this crisis is the loss of judicial impartiality. The judiciary's credibility is founded on the principle of impartiality, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and without bias. When a judge is suspected of having undisclosed conflicts of interest, it calls into question the fairness of their rulings. In this case, the suggestion that Judge Rofe’s decisions might be influenced by her past relationship with Pfizer compromises the impartiality expected of a judge, undermining the legal process.

Public trust in the judiciary is paramount for the functioning of the legal system. The allegations and the perceived lack of action by Chief Justice Mortimer to address these concerns suggest that the judiciary might be protecting its own members rather than upholding justice. This erodes public trust and can lead to widespread scepticism about the fairness of judicial proceedings. The erosion of trust means that people may no longer see the courts as places of fair adjudication but as institutions potentially swayed by undisclosed influences.

This situation also undermines the rule of law, a fundamental principle that relies on the belief that all individuals, including judges, are subject to the law. If judges are seen as being above the law, it undermines this essential principle. The failure to address serious misconduct allegations suggests that the judiciary may not be operating under the same legal standards as the general public, creating a perception of injustice and inequality before the law.

A loss of faith in the judiciary can lead to social unrest. When people believe that justice cannot be attained through legal means, they may turn to alternative methods, including protest and civil disobedience, to seek redress. This can result in increased societal instability and conflict, as the public loses faith in the ability of the courts to serve as neutral arbiters of justice.

The judiciary is a critical pillar of democratic governance, ensuring checks and balances within the system. A compromised judiciary weakens these democratic institutions and can lead to a broader crisis of governance. The perceived failure to hold judges accountable can result in a diminished respect for other democratic processes and institutions, undermining the very fabric of democratic society.

Above: Captured justice?

Moreover, a judicial crisis can have international implications. It can affect a country's reputation, deter foreign investment, and lead to a loss of confidence from the international community. A judiciary perceived as corrupt or biased can have far-reaching consequences beyond national borders, affecting diplomatic relations and economic stability.

The situation described in the GMO case reflects a judicial crisis characterized by a significant loss of public trust, potential bias, and a failure of accountability. Addressing these issues is crucial to restoring confidence in the judiciary and ensuring the continued functioning of the rule of law and democratic governance. The integrity of the judiciary must be upheld to maintain the trust and confidence of the public, both domestically and internationally, and to preserve the democratic principles that are the foundation of Australian society.

A stark warning to those implicated

As the judicial crisis unfolds, it serves as a stark warning to those implicated in the GMO case. This case reveals deeply unsettling truths about the handling of COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna and the failures of health and government officials. Once the GMO case is re-established, these individuals will face intense scrutiny and likely be found complicit in this entire saga.

Health officials and government regulators approved and promoted these vaccines without the necessary safety evaluations and public disclosures, constituting a profound breach of duty. Their actions echo the Nuremberg trials, where "just following orders" was deemed an inadequate defence against gross negligence and misconduct. The concealment of safety risks and bypassing of essential regulatory scrutiny indicate a severe dereliction of duty that cannot be excused by bureaucratic obedience. As the GMO case progresses, those responsible will have to answer for their actions, and the public will demand accountability and justice.

This judicial crisis and the re-establishment of the GMO case serve as a critical reminder of the necessity for transparency, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards in public health and governance. The failures in handling the COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna, along with the complicity of health and government officials, reflect a severe breach of duty of care that will not be shielded by the defence of merely following orders. The demand for accountability is paramount to restoring public trust and ensuring the integrity of public health governance.