[The following is affidavit #2 of Victorian political prisoner Mr Julian Knight (verbatim) dated 20 April 2023, including four attached documents (annexures) which shall also be reproduced on this website.   

The matter lodged by Mr Knight concerns his claim for reparation payment against the Australian Defence Force Ombudman (DFO) for Mr Knight’s multiple experiences of “bastardization” that Mr Knight suffered from the hands of senior staff cadets whilst he was enrolled at the Royal Military College, Duntroon in 1987. 

Back on 13th January 2015, the now defunct Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) had drafted an Assessment Note in relation to Knight’s Personal Account of his historical abuse experiences at Duntroon.  This DART Assessor found that Mr Knight’s complaint: (a) contained an account of abuse that was plausible and (b) raised plausible mismanagement by Defence of a plausible report of abuse. These findings would have entitled me to a reparation payment of $10,000, $20,000, $35,000 or $50,000.  However, no recommendation or decision was actually made as to which reparation payments Mr Knight was entitled to receive.

Major General Len Roberts-Smith, Ben Roberts-Smith father (below right) was the Chairman of DART at the time.  We make no presumptions or accusations, but was there perhaps a perceived conflict of interest in which a senior ranking graduate of Duntroon oversaw a compelling challenge by Knight against Duntroon.

This pending matter is effectively an appeal by Mr Knight for this miscarriage of justice against him.  DART rejected Knight’s reparation claim against Duntroon on some irrelevant subsequent event – the Hoddle Street Shootings. 

By 2014,  Mr Knight had served out his 27 year minimum non-parole sentence. 

DART was wound up in September 2016, and the government of the day chose to delegate the DART function to the Commonwealth Ombudsman – DFO section.   DFO then rejected Knight’s second reparation claim without reading the compelling new evidence presented.  Unlike DART, the DFO was denied the necessary funding, resources and scope to make reparation payments for compensation, but limited to only recommendations.

Knight’s appeal of this decision is currently listed for a half-day hearing from 10:15 am on Wednesday 29 November 2023 in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) (Victoria District) which is situated at 305 William Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000.]

[Form 59 |  Rule 29.02(1)]

Affidavit

Federal Court of Australia (FCA)
District Registry: Victoria
Division: General
305 William Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000

FCA File No:   VID  364 of 2023

Julian Knight

[Applicant]

Defence Force Ombudsman

[Respondent]

Affidavit of:     Mr Julian Knight
Address:          Port Phillip Prison,  451 Doherty ‘s Road, Truganina Vic 3029
Occupation:    Prisoner
Date:                20 April 2023

Documents:

1. Affidavit of Julian Knight in support of application for judicial review signed on 20 April 2023  |  Paragraph 1-21  | Page 1-7;
2. Annexure “JK-1”, being a copy of the Personal Account submitted by Julian Knight to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce on 26 November 2013  |  Paragraph 13  | Page 3;
3. Annexure “JK-2”, being a copy of the Assessment Note of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce dated 13 January 2015 in relation to the Personal Account submitted by Julian Knight on 26 November 2013 |  Paragraph 16  | Page 4;
4. Annexure “JK-3”, being a copy of the Complaint of  Historical Abuse submitted by Julian Knight to the Defence Force Ombudsman on 16 March 2023. |  Paragraph 33  | Page 7;
5. Annexure “JK-4”, being a copy of the letter from ‘Susan’, Director, Defence Abuse Liaison and Restorative Engagement, Defence Force Ombudsman, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to Julian Knight dated 21 March 2023 . |  Paragraph 34  | Page 7.

1.  I am the Applicant.  I am a prisoner serving a life sentence at Port Phillip Prison (“PPP”) at Truganina in the State of Victoria. I was born in 1968.

Service History

2. Between 12 January 1987 and 24 July  1987, I served as an officer cadet in the Australian Regular Army.

3. Between 13 January 1987 and 10 July 1987, I served as a junior staff cadet (3rd Class) at the Royal Military College, Duntroon.

4. During my service at Duntroon, I was subjected to various and constant acts of “bastardization” by senior staff cadets (1st and 2nd Class). I was also physically injured on three occasions as a result of actions by various senior staff .  These occasions were in February 1987 and on 17 March 1987 at Duntroon, and on 31 May  1987 in a nightclub in Canberra .

5. On 31 May 1987, I stabbed my cadet Company Sergeant Major after I was involved in an altercation with him and other senior staff cadets in a nightclub in Civic,

6. On 3 June 1987, the Duntroon Board of Study decided that I should “show cause” why my appointment as a staff cadet should not be

7. On 18 June 1987, I tendered my resignation to the Chief of the General Staff (CGS). My resignation was subsequently accepted by the

8. On 24 July 1987, I was discharged in absentia from the Australian Regular Army.

Arrest & Sentence

9. On 9 August 1987, I was arrested in Melbourne, Victoria, my commission of a mass shooting that became known as the “Hoddle Street shootings”.

10. On 28 October 1988, I was arraigned in the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne before the Honourable Justice At this arraignment I pleaded guilty to 7 counts of murder and 46 counts of attempted murder.

11. On 10 November 1988, I was sentenced by the Honourable Justice Hampel in the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne to a term of Life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole term of 27 years (see R v Knight [1989] VR 705).

Defence Abuse Response Taskforce

12. On 26 November 2012, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (the D.A.R.T.) was established in the wake of the so-called “Skype scandal” at the Australian Defence Force Academy in   The terms ofr  ference of the DART were to investigate alleged incidences of abuse in the Australian Defence Force occurring prior to April 2011.

13. On 26 November 2013, I submitted my Personal Account regarding my experiences at Duntroon to the DART (DART Ref No 906049).  My Personal Account was 94 pages in length (plus 13 attachments) and included an account of my experiences of “bastardization” and the physical injuries I sustained.  Now produced and shown to me and marked “Exhibit JK-1” is a copy of my Personal Account submitted to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce.   The process employed by the DART was that: first, a complaint received by the Taskforce would be filed and given a reference number; second, an Assessor would review the complaint; third, make an assessment as to whether it contained a plausible account of abuse and/or a plausible account of mismanagement by Defence of a plausible complaint of abuse; fourth, an independent Reparation Payments Assessor appointed by the DART to administer the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme (DARS) would determine whether or not a reparation payment should be made and, if so, which one(s); fifth, the DART would make an offer of a reparation payment or payments.

14. When I submitted my Personal Account to the DART on 26 November 2013, I also submitted an Application for Reparation Payment Form to the DARS (DARS Ref No 2013/7518).

15. The DART Guidelines at that time contained the following provision:

“5.8 Certain Reparation Payments to be held on trust

5.8.1 Certain Reparation Payments may be held on trust for:

(a)       a person who is a prisoner incarcerated in any State or Territory of Australia or in a foreign jurisdiction (in which case a payment may be held until a prisoner is released, or may be forwarded to the Department of Corrective Services, or equivalent department in the relevant jurisdiction, to be held for the benefit of the person and paid subject to the responsible department’s operational procedures).”

16. On 13 January 2015, a D.A.R.T. Assessor drafted an Assessment Note in relation to my Personal Account.  Now reproduced and shown to me marked “Exhibit JK-2” is a copy of the D.A.R.T. ‘Assessment Note‘ dated 13 January 2015.  The DART Assessor found that my complaint: (a) contained an account of abuse that was plausible and (b) raised plausible mismanagement by Defence of a plausible report of abuse. These findings would have entitled me to a reparation payment of $10,000, $20,000, $35,000 or $50,000. No recommendation or decision was actually made as to which reparation payments I was entitled to receive.

17. On 26 June 2015, the then Chair of the DART, Mr Robert Cornall AO, advised me of the following in relation to my application for a reparation payment:

“The Taskforce has been awaiting directions from the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice in relation to applications from complainants who are incarcerated or on parole following their incarceration.

The Taskforce has recently received advice from the Ministers that the Taskforce should not make reparation payments to incarcerated complainants or persons currently on parole. As a result of that decision, you are not eligible to receive a reparation payment from the Taskforce.”

18. As a result of this decision my application was not assessed by the Reparation Payments Assessor , Ms Robyn Kruk AM.

19. On 4 September 2015, I filed the proceeding Knight v Minister for Defence & Ors (Case No ACD 109 of 2015) in the ACT Registry of the Federal Court of Australia.

20. On 23 November 2015, the Honourable Justice Jagot sitting in the ACT ordered that the proceeding Knight v Minister for Defence & Ors be transferred to the Victoria Registry of the Federal Court.

21. On 11 December 2015, the Australian Government Solicitor advised me that of the more than 2,400 persons who had made applications for reparation payments, there were only 3 persons -myself and two others -who were ineligible to receive a reparation payment as a result of being incarcerated or on parole (the ministers’ direction did not include anyone who had previously been incarcerated or been on parole).

22. On 3 February 2016, the DART offered to reconsider its decision not to make a reparation payment to me under the On this basis, the Honourable Justice Bromberg sitting in Melbourne adjourned the hearing of Knight v Minister for Defence & Ors until after a final decision had been made.

23. On 16 February 2016, Mr Iain Anderson, Chief Operating Officer to the Deputy Secretary, Strategic Operations and Coordination Group, of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, wrote to me and advised me of the key matters that the Commonwealth Government regarded as relevant in considering whether claimants who are incarcerated or on parole will be eligible to receive a reparation payment under the I was invited to make submissions in relation to those key issues.

24. On 1 March 2016, I wrote to Ms Kirsty Windeyer, then with the Strategic Operations & Coordination Group of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, and outlined  my submissions in relation to the key matters that the Commonwealth Government stated as being relevant in considering whether claimants who are incarcerated or on parole will be eligible to receive a reparation payment under the D.A.R.S.

25. On 5 May 2016, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice directed the DART that ‘no reparation payment should be made where a person has been convicted of a serious ‘ They further directed the DART that in determining whether a crime is a serious crime, it should adopt a starting proposition that a serious crime is one attracting a maximum sentence of over 10 years.

26. On 20 May 2016, Ms Windeyer, by then the Executive Director of the DART, wrote to me and advised me that the decision of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice was that no person convicted of a serious crime would be eligible for a reparation payment under the DARS.  Ms Windeyer advised me that her preliminary decision was that, as I was a person who has been convicted of a serious crime within the meaning of the Ministers ‘ decisions, I was not eligible for a reparation payment under the DARS. I was invited to make further submissions before a final decision was made.

27. On 30 May 2016, I advised Ms Windeyer that I intended to make further submissions and I asked that the two other applicants who had been denied a reparation payment on the ground of being convicted of ‘a:serious crime’ be identified.

28. On 31 May 2016, Ms Windeyer wrote to me and informed me that she would not identify the two other applicants who had been denied a reparation payment on the ground of being convicted of ‘a serious crime’.

29. On 3 June 2016, I submitted my further submissions to Ms Windeyer.

30. On 8 June 2016, Ms Windeyer wrote to me and informed me that her final decision was that, as I was a person who has been convicted of a serious crime within the meaning of the Ministers’ decision, I was not eligible for a reparation payment under the D.A.R.S.

31. On 15 September 2016, the Honourable Justice Bromberg dismissed my application in the matter of Knight v Minister for Defence & Ors (see Knight -v- Commonwealth of Australia [2016] FCA 1160).  The basis of His Honour’s decision was that the D.A.R.S. was ‘a Commonwealth scheme established by executive action with no basis in statute or the general or common law’ (at [11] 3).

Defence Force Ombudsman

32. On 1 December 2016, responsibility for administering the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme was transferred from the DART to the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) and was put on a statutory footing (the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 (Cth)).

33. On 16 March 2023, I submitted a renewed complaint of historical abuse to the DFO.   Now produced and shown to me and marked “Exhibit JK-3” is a copy of my Complaint of Historical Abuse submitted to the DFO.  This complaint was based on my earlier complaint to the DART but contained additional complaints, additional material and new facts, and was 121 pages in length (plus 36 attachments) as opposed to the 94 pages in length (plus 13 attachments) of the Personal Account I previously submitted to the DART.

34. On 21 March 2023, I received a letter dated 21 March 2023 from ‘Susan’, the Director of Defence Abuse Liaison and Restorative Engagement, Defence Force Ombudsman, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (DFO Ref: D2023-100125).  Now produced and shown to me and marked “Exhibit-JK-4”  is a copy of ‘Susan’s’ letter to me dated 21 March 2023.  This letter notified me that my report would not be investigated by the DFO because, pursuant to regulation 5 of the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 (Cth), my report was considered to be an ‘excluded complaint’, in that it was considered to be ‘a complaint that:
    (a) was previously made to, and dealt with by, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (the D.A.R.T.); or
    (b) is the same in substance as a complaint that was previously made to, and dealt with by, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce.’ ‘Susan’ added that my complaints about the Director of Army Legal Services (DALS) and the D.A.R.T. would not be investigated because the D.F.O. could only consider incidents that occurred whilst I was a serving member of the Australian Defence Force.

Signed by the deponent                                )

at Port Phillip Prison                                     )

at Truganina in Victoria                               )

on 20 April 2023                                            )

Signature of witness

[End of Document]