INTRO: This is the third article of a series of five articles concerning Mr Knight’s legal case challenge of 2023 against the Australian Government’s Defence Force Ombudsman due to its failure in due process of Mr Knight’s legitimate reparations claim in 2013 for the Defence abuse he suffered at Duntroon in 1987.
The outline of this case is provided in the following webpage article, which is filed on this website under the menu heading ‘legal-battles/knight-v-dfo-2023-2024/‘.
The related articles to this legal case in order are:
- KNIGHT v DFO (2023-2024)
- Knight v DFO in the Federal Court 2023 – the D.F.O.’s Submission 16-Feb-2024
- KNIGHT v DFO (FCA) – Knight’s rebuttals against DFO’s submissions (PART 1 of 3)
- KNIGHT v DFO (FCA) – Knight’s rebuttals against DFO’s submissions (PART 2 of 3)
- KNIGHT v DFO (FCA) – Knight’s rebuttals against DFO’s submissions (PART 3 of 3)
The Australia Government’s all powerful Defence Force Ombudsman (D.F.O.) represented by a King’s Counsel backed by a team of lawyers of the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) firm, having bottomless pockets all funded by Australian taxpayers. Mr Knight being unable to obtain legal counsel, denied by the prison system a computer and Internet access, makes this another ‘David & Goliath’ contest.
JULIAN KNIGHT v DEFENCE FORCE OMBUDSMAN
Mr Knight’s Court Exhibit “JK-7”
in the Federal Court Of Australia
Applicant: Mr Julian Knight, Political Prisoner of the Victorian Parliament since 8 May 2014, currently incarcerated in maximum security at Port Phillip Prison.
Date of Lodgement: 20 April 2023
Representation: Self-represented [legal counsel unattainable]
Respondent: Defence Force Ombudsman, a branch of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, a Department of the Australian Government
Representation: Tim M. Begbie KC, J. A. Lucas, Madisen Anne Scott;Australian Government Solicitor (AGS)
Date Lodged: 16 February 2024[Just 11 days before the Date of Hearing]
Registry: Federal Court of Australia (Victoria)
File Number: VID 364/2023
Date of Hearing: Monday, 4 March 2024 [Adjourned from 29 November by Applicant]
Seminal in Australian history, Julian Knight’s ongoing case matters emerge out of his multiple abuse experiences at The Royal Military College at Duntroon of the Australian Regular Army whilst training and employed as a junior officer staff cadet Jan-Jul 1987. [Hoddle Street occurred immediately after on 9th August 1987].
Applicant’s Rebuttal #0a: This is clearly a ‘David & Goliath’ contest
The Applicant (Mr Knight) remains currently a long-term prisoner in Port Phillip Prison under maximum security penal conditions. He has been incarcerated away from society since 1987, some 37 years ago.
Immediately in the hours following his Hoddle Street shooting spree on the night of Sunday 9th August 1987, Mr Knight confessed immediately to arresting Victoria Police. It was just 16 days after his formal discharge from the Army. He also pleaded guilty to all charges in both the Melbourne Magistrates Court initially and then also in the Victorian Supreme Court.
So, there was no trial as such, rather a series of hearings and then sentencing. During this the intervening period between his arrest and his sentencing, Mr Knight was logically held in custody . His Sentencing Hearing finally took place on 10th November, 1988, being some 15 months after his arrest. Mr Knight was sentenced to a minimum 27 years’ jail, and not eligible for parole until May 2014.
Mr Knight’s judicial criminal sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1988 lapsed to enable his eligibility for parole from 8 May 2014. However, in the year leading up to that eligibility, on 20 November 2013 the Victorian Napthine Government usurped his served out Judicial penalty by enacting legislative penalty, so effectively overruling the Judiciary by imposing indefinite incarceration targeting Mr Knight only.
[SOURCE: Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act (VIC) 2014 (No.18 of 2014 SECT 3, New Section 74AA inserted]
Since that unconstitutional legislation was enacted, Mr Knight has effectively become a political prisoner of the Victorian State Government.
Mr Knight remains under the Port Phillip Prison maximum security regime, G4S. Mr Knight is denied access to a personal computer, to the Internet, to legal counsel, to legal research, to stationery, etc. Mr Knight has no capacity to earn an income, or to obtain funding so therefore unable to pay any Court costs.
In this current case in the Federal Court of Australia, Mr Knight is forced to self-represent himself.
In stark contrast, the Respondent, the Defence Forced Ombudsman (the D.F.O.) is a branch of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, being a department of the Australian Government. The D.F.O. is taxpayer-funded.
The D.F.O. has appointed a Kings Counsel, Tim M Begbie KC of the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) legal firm to lead legal representation for the Respondent in this case, along with senior counsel J.A. Lucas and supporting lawyers at the AGS to prepare a 40-paragraph researched submission for the Respondent.
Applicant’s Rebuttal #0b: AGS’s privileged insight as the Australian Government’s preferred law firm into the Australian Government’s ‘agencies’: ADF, D.A.R.T., and D.F.O.
The Respondent’s selected legal representative firm, the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS), has been the ‘go-to’ legal representation for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for decades. Its office is located a convenient 3km just across the bridge over the Lake Burley Griffin from The Royal Military College of Australia at Duntroon. One of its government clients? Frequent joint luncheons? [SOURCE: Google Maps, 22 March 2024]
It would appear that AGS has been integrally involved in advising and operating the D.A.R.T. since D.A.R.T.’s establishment in 2012. This means that AGS would likely have over many years built up a deep insight database and inside knowledge familiarity with the D.A.R.T.’s functions and of its Defence abuse cases, notably including that of Mr Knight’s.
This is evidenced by the submitted annexures of AGS’S Senior Lawyer Madison Anne Smith (M.A.S.) (MAS-2, MAS-3 and MAS-4) which in this case reveal AGS’s privileged restricted access to internal Australian Government correspondences labelled “For Official Use Only” and “Sensitive” and “Personal”.
Mr Knight has not had prior knowledge of such confidential documents, obtained by privilege. This clearly places the case of KNIGHT v DEFENCE FORCE OMBUDSMAN in an unfair David and Goliath legal contest between Mr Knight to have a fair hearing against the D.F.O.
Indeed, the signatory of the D.A.R.T. 2-page letter to Mr Knight of 20 May 2016 (copy below) , who wrote to reject Mr Knight’s eligibility for Defence-abuse reparations and indeed any recognition of his abuse, was one Kirsty Windeyer, in her role as the Executive Director of the D.A.R.T. no less.
D.A.R.T.’s 2-page letter to Mr Knight of 20 May 2016, obtained by Freedom of Information by Mr Knight from the Attorney Generals Department in 2023: (copy below)
Co-incidentally, the current AGS website states that back in 2013-14 Kirsty Windeyer (as Senior Executive Lawyer) appears employed by AGS as special counsel to the D.A.R.T. in an “outpost” role:
[SOURCE: Extract from the 2013–14 AGS annual report, https://www.ags.gov.au/areasoflaw/case-studies/2013-14/government-inquiries, Accessed: Friday, 22 March 2024]
Applicant’s Rebuttal #0c: Respondent’s delayed 40-paragraph submission is highly unfair to the Applicant
The Australian Government Solicitor lodged the Respondent’s submission to this Federal Court case on 16 February 2014, merely 11 business days prior to the reschedule hearing date of Monday 4 March 2024. Talk about last minute! It is eleven pages containing 40 numbered paragraphs of argument/claims/assertions. Talk about unfairness! The Court ought to have rejected it outright. He Honour was playing favourites with the AGS, being so familiar? Biased?
Mr Knight eventually received Respondent’s submission a week later, just days before the hearing date. As a consequence, Mr Knight was not afforded sufficient time before the Court hearing in order to read the Respondent’s submission, let alone prepare a response to the 40 paragraphs.
This is what this document does now.
It is acknowledged and appreciated by Mr Knight that since the hearing date, that Her Honour has granted the Respondent additional time to make additional submissions in this case.
Applicant’s Rebuttal #0d: Respondent’s failure to provide the Applicant with the requested consolidated Court Book
In advance of this FCA hearing date of 4th March 2024, Mr Knight in his letter dated 9 January 2024 to the Respondent’s representative, Ms Madisen Scott, Senior Lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS), had requested from her “that a hard copy of the consolidated Court Book” be posted to him by the AGS.
The AGS failed to supply this key document to the Applicant Mr Knight in due time before the Federal Court’s imposed deadline upon Mr Knight to serve such further evidence.
[Extracts of the Respondent’s Annexure “MAS-1” below.]
Given Mr Knight’s 24/7 maximum security incarceration at Port Phillip Prison at this time, the Respondent’s failure to meet the Applicant’s request, only served to place the Applicant in an increasingly unfair legal contest in his case against the Australian Government’s D.F.O.
Perhaps this was deliberate on the part of the AGS.
Respondent’s Paragraph #1:
“PART I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
In 2013, the applicant (Mr Knight) made a submission to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (D.A.R.T. ) and applied for a reparation payment in relation to abuse which occurred in 1987 when he was a Defence cadet.
In 2016, the D.A.R.T. advised that reparation would not be payable. It did not notify Mr Knight of a formal decision in respect of other potential D.A.R.T. outcomes, such as counselling.”
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1a:
Given that the Respondent has sought to introduce the former D.A.R.T. (the Taskforce) into its submission in this case KNIGHT v DEFENCE FORCE OMBUDSMAN FCA VID364/2023, the Applicant is justified to rebut the Respondent’s claims about the D.A.R.T. and so provide factual explanatory background to the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) to this current case.
For the Court’s benefit, indeed relevant background is appropriate to explain:
- Mr Knight’s documented serious physical abuse and workplace harassment and bullying by senior cadets that he experienced in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) whilst training at the Royal Military College (RMC) at Duntroon back in 1987.
- Mr Knight’s Defence-multiple abuse initial claim to the D.A.R.T. (for reparations and counselling) of 26 November 2013
- Mr Knight’s Defence-multiple abuse new claim to the superseding D.F.O. (for reparations and counselling) of 16 March 2023, a decade later
Filed to this Court by the Applicant (Mr Knight) in this case on 20 April 2023 are the details of Mr Knight’s Defence-abuse experience have been included in the submitted Exhibits [initially Exhibits “JK-1”, “JK-2”, “JK-3”, “JK-4” and “JK-5”]
The Hon Catherine Gail BUTTON, it is requested that Her Honour presiding over this case, please read these Annexures in order to garner a comprehensive insight into the background of Mr Knight’s Defence multiple-abuse legacy and the failures of both the D.A.R.T. and D.F.O. to formally acknowledge that his abuse at Duntroon ever took place.
Clearly, the D.A.R.T. did read Mr Knight’s detailed submitted documents of his Defence-multiple abuse incidents, specifically Mr Knight’s submitted ‘Personal Account’ [Annexure “JK-1”].
This is markedly evident from D.A.R.T.’s ‘Assessment Note’ [Exhibit “JK-2”].
This D.A.R.T. ‘Assessment Note’ is perhaps the key defining document in all this case.
Clearly, the D.A.R.T. appointed assessor had actually read Mr Knight’s submitted multiple abuse incidents that he reported in his submitted ‘Personal Account’. In the D.A.R.T. Assessment Note the assessor’s preliminary findings not only acknowledge Mr Knight’s detailed claims of abuse but also make the following recommendations:
- Consideration for reparation at the serious end of the scale
- Counselling
- That further investigation be undertaken to consider criminal prosecution of the abuse perpetrators
This was back on 13 January 2015, well before the D.A.R.T. was overruled by political ministerial interference on 5 May 2016.
This contrasts to the handling by the D.F.O. of Mr Knight’s second new claim in which the D.F.O. did NOT even read any of Mr Knight’s submitted material, notably Mr Knight’s ‘Complaint of Historical Abuse’ at RMC Duntroon. [Exhibit “JK-3”] which includes new compelling evidence.
Brief Background about the D.A.R.T.:
“The Taskforce was established on 26 November 2012 to assist complainants who had suffered sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual harassment and workplace harassment and bullying in Defence prior to 11 April 2011. Ministers have recently extended the operation of the Taskforce from 1 April to 30 June 2016.”
[SOURCE: The D.A.R.T. Final Report to the Australian Government 31 March 2016]
On 26 November 2013, yes, the Applicant (Mr Knight) indeed initially applied to the then ‘D.A.R.T. ’ including his 95-page ‘Personal Account’ with 13 attachments detailing Defence abuse at the Royal Military College of Australia at Duntroon during his Army training January-June 1987 whilst serving as an Army officer cadet. [See Exhibit “JK-1”].
The D.A.R.T. failed to respond to Mr Knight until its two-page letter of 20 May 2016, some two years and six months later, stating that he was (retrospectively) now ineligible for a reparation payment. The timing of this letter was two months after the D.A.R.T.’s twelfth and Final Report to the Australian Government back on 31 March 2016.
In this current Federal Court of Australia case [VID364], the Applicant in his NEW complaint as dated 16 March 2023 to the Defence Force Ombudsman (the D.F.O.) was NOT a complaint against the former Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (D.A.R.T. ). Rather it was a new modified complaint with new evidence to the D.F.O. – indeed a new complaint to the D.F.O. containing new detailed evidence – Mr Knight’s 122-page ‘Complaint of Historical Abuse’ plus 22 attachments submitted to the D.F.O. on 16 March 2023. [Annexure “JK-3”]
So how does the Respondent consider this paragraph’s reference to the former D.A.R.T. to be relevant to this case KNIGHT v D.F.O.? If the Respondent is confusing the two organisations, D.A.R.T. and D.F.O., then would this be due to the fact that the different Australian Government in late 2016 by its sole discretion, decided to replace the former Australian Government’s D.A.R.T. with lesser D.F.O.?
In the D.A.R.T.’s Final Report to the Australian Government dated 31 March 2016, there was no mention by the report’s author, the then Chair Robert Cornall, that any organisation was to replace the D.A.R.T. in delivering its charged functions for the foreseeable future.
Pragmatically relevant to this period, during the 3-year life of the D.A.R.T. investigations (2012-2016) there had been party-political changes in the makeup of the Australia Government from the federal election held on 7 September 2013, then again in a PM leadership change from 14 September 2015.
The D.A.R.T. had been established by the then Australian Government of the day to investigate and “deal with” abuse allegations historically occurring prior to 11 Apr 2011 to individuals within the Australian Defence Force. This initiative followed ongoing Defence abuse scandals (notably culminating in the notorious ‘A.D.F.A. Skype Sex Scandal’ and trial in 2011.
But the D.A.R.T. was established outside the Judiciary as a Quasi Autonomous National Government Organisation (QANGO). The Australian Government of the day in 2012 gave the D.A.R.T. a set operational timeframe, which was slightly extended from March 2016 to June 2016. This despite the fact that this Final Report stated that key tasks were not completed and that individual allegations of Defence-abuse were continuing to be received by the D.A.R.T.
It seems that between the winding up of the D.A.R.T. and the re-delegation of D.A.R.T.’s functions to the new D.F.O. on 1 December 2016, that there was an unmanaged void of 6- months or more to “deal with” reported and Defence abuse allegations by individuals (that is investigations, reparations, counselling and reporting perpetrators to police).
This indicates that basically the D.F.O. from its establishment by the then different Australian Government makeup to undertake essentially the same delegated functions of the D.A.R.T. , albeit as a sub-department within the department of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, but limited by reduced (watered-down) Terms of Reference, budget and resources. It was a political decision at the time for this, another QUANGO, outside the Judiciary.
That the Respondent (the D.F.O.) through its representation by AGS, managed to obtain and submit its Annexures ‘MAS-2’, ‘MAS-3’ and ‘MAS-4’ in this case – being classified as “sensitive” and “official” internal federal government letters between the D.A.R.T. Chair and the Australian Government (Minister for Defence and the Attorney General), reveals that the D.F.O. was indeed simply a re-branded D.A.R.T. due to a change of politics of the day – Labor to Liberal in the federal election from 7 September 2013.
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1b:
In early 2016, the Australian Government decided to discontinue the D.A.R.T. , despite the Taskforce’s Chair reporting an ongoing continuing flow of it receiving many individual allegations of Defence abuse claims. This is revealed in the D.A.R.T. Final Report to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice dated 31 March 2016.
The Australian Government replaced D.A.R.T. with D.F.O., with D.F.O.’s statutory function under the Ombudsman Act 1976 Part 2A Section 19C (1) which states:
“The functions of the Defence Force Ombudsman are to investigate complaints made to him or her under this Act and to perform such other functions as are conferred on him or her by: (a) this Act or the regulations…”
Pertinent to Mr Knight’s reporting to the D.F.O., the (Commonwealth) Ombudsman Regulations 2017 (Compilation No. 3, Registered 11 January 2021) Part 3, Section 14 states the conferral of functions on the Defence Force Ombudsman notably including:
1. Ombudsman Regulations 2017, Part 3, Section 14 Section 1(a):
“…the function of taking appropriate action to respond to a new complaint of abuse made by a complainant if the Defence Force Ombudsman is satisfied that the abuse is reasonably likely to have occurred, including any of the following actions (including) (i) “facilitating counselling for the complainant.”
2. Ombudsman Regulations 2017, Part 3, Section 14A (1) (b)
“Payments to complainants—certain new complaints, that “if the Defence Force Ombudsman is satisfied that the abuse involved the most serious forms of abuse, the Defence Force Ombudsman may recommend that the Defence Secretary make a reparation payment of up to $45,000 to the complainant.”
3. Ombudsman Regulations 2017, Part 3, Section 14 – under “Notes”, under Section 35A of the Act the D.F.O. to:
“…refer evidence relating to a complaint of abuse to the Australian Federal Police, the police force or police service of a State or Territory or a military justice authority for investigation and possible prosecution of an offence.”
In Mr Knight’s case, he lodged a completed Application for Reparation Payment Form to the D.F.O. signed on 26 November 2013, yet the D.F.O. subsequently failed to confer its statutory functions of the Ombudsman Regulations 2017, as quoted above.
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1c:
The documented fact is that Mr Knight submitted his first application for Defence abuse he suffered at Duntroon in 1987 to the D.A.R.T. on 26 November 2013.
As a junior Army Officer Staff Cadet, Knight on Tuesday 17 March 1987 was unprovokedly mugged at RMC Duntroon by five senior cadets. He was then taken to 5 Camp Hospital (within RMC Duntroon) where he was examined and…
“diagnosed by Army doctor Captain Sue STONES as having severe ligament damage in the dorsum of the left wrist. As a result, I had a back slab cast put on my left forearm, and my left hand and wrist remained in a sling during the period 17-24 March 1987.”
[Source ‘Complaint of Historical Abuse’ at page 28 and Photograph of injured Mr Knight at RMC Duntroon (copy below) in Attachment 5] [See Annexure “JK-1”].
This serious Defence abuse incident upon Mr Knight at RMC Duntroon was just one of eight documented physical abuse incidents involving assault or battery inflicted by senior cadets against Mr Knight whilst in his workplace at the Royal Military College, Duntroon.
QUESTION: Does the D.F.O. even know the number of abuse incidents Mr Knight was subjected to whilst training to be an Army Officer at Duntroon?
Mr Knight’s cited incidents of physical abuse received by senior cadets at RMC Duntroon. Outlines of 10 Defence-multiple abuse incidents against Mr Knight at RMC Duntroon are well documented in Knight v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 3, paragraphs 6 to 37.
Mr Knight, having been exclusively accepted for training to be an army officer through the Army’s rigorous selection process, throughout his subsequent 6-month experience at RMC Duntroon, Mr Knight was subjected to continual workplace harassment and bullying by senior cadets.
As part of systemic Duntroon training culture, senior cadets were granted unfettered personal coercive control and absolute 24/7 delegated authority (including free reign of “hazing”/ “bastardisation” abuse) of junior cadets, including Mr Knight.
Such systemic sadistic treatment inflicted upon junior cadets by senior cadets at RMC Duntroon, be secretly condoned by successive RMC Duntroon management since 1912, has been publicly documented in two nonfictional book accounts:
- Book: ‘Duntroon: The Royal Military College of Australia 1911-1986’ published in 1986 by author Chris Coulthard (a former cadet graduate of RMC in 1972; C.D. 2662). Relevant to the bastardsation/ (previously referred to as ‘hazing’) culture at RMC Duntroon is specifically described in the author’s Chapter 16 – ‘The College on the Point of Change’ pages 319 to 336. In 1987, during Mr Knights training, RMC hadn’t changed its bastardsation culture toward junior cadets in the slightest.
- Book: ‘Duntroon: The Royal Military College of Australia 1911-2011’ published in 2001 by author Darren Moore (similarly a former graduate of RMC Duntroon). Relevant to the bastardsation/ (previously referred to as ‘hazing’) culture at RMC Duntroon is specifically described in the author’s Chapter 20 – ‘HAZING’ pages 347 to 396.
Defence (RMC-Duntroon) Abuse Incidents cited by Mr Knight:
Incident 1: February 1987: “leaps and jumps” incident … “During this exercise (senior staff cadet) Corporal William Yates grabbed the plaintiff (Mr Knight) as he ran past and punched him twice in the stomach with significant force.”
Incident 2: 17 March 1987: “Bishing” incident… “the plaintiff (Mr Knight) was pushed from behind into some rose bushes and when he arose, he was repeatedly punched about the head and body, mostly to the back of the head, kicked and kneed, pushed and dragged to the ground (by five senior staff cadets).” (photo above)
Incident 3: 15 May 1987: Hallway Incident… “The plaintiff (Mr Knight) was then given permission to walk between two lines of sitting (senior staff cadets) who attempted to trip him making contact with his legs as he passed through.”
Incident 4: Mid-May 1987: Parade Rehearsal Incident… “The plaintiff (Mr Knight) alleges that during a parade rehearsal at Duntroon the plaintiff was abused by (senior) Staff Cadet Robert Hamburger for not being able to march and throughout the rehearsal was kicked in the heels by Staff Cadet Hamburger.”
Incident 5: 30 May 1987: Bayonet Incident… “The plaintiff (Mr Knight) alleges that on 30 May 1987 at Duntroon following a parade rehearsal for the Queen’s Birthday Parade the plaintiff was verbally abused by (senior staff cadet) Lance Corporal Colin Thorp, the second defendant, for wearing jeans at the Private Bin Nightclub the previous evening. The plaintiff alleges: “the 2nd defendant told the plaintiff that he ‘must be a fucking idiot’ for wearing jeans on local leave and not returning to barracks when instructed to do so by (senior) Staff Cadet Nicolas Everingham.
The 2nd defendant then jabbed the plaintiff in the chest with his bayonet causing minor transient injury.”
Incident 6: 30 May 1987 Hallway Incident… “On the same day (senior) Staff Cadet Hamburger is alleged to have abused the plaintiff (Mr Knight) by saying “I oughta punch you in the head!”. It is then alleged that shortly after Staff Cadet Hamburger “grabbed the plaintiff with both hands by the front of his shirt, pushed him up against the wall and held him there repeating ‘I oughta punch you in the fucking head!’”.
It is alleged that the plaintiff was fearful that Mr Hamburger and other senior staff cadets present were about to engage in a more severe assault of him than the one that actually occurred. Thus, the allegation appears to be of both a battery and an additional assault.”
Incident 7: 30 May 1987: Incident with Corporal Thompson… “The plaintiff (Mr Knight) alleges that shortly after the hallway incident (senior staff cadet) Corporal Matthew Thompson shouted at the plaintiff “I saw that! You’re gone! You’re getting charged with insubordination and assaulting a superior!”. This is alleged to be an assault because “the plaintiff was fearful that Corporal Thompson was about to engage in a more severe assault of him than the one that actually occurred”.
Incident 8: 30 May 1987: Incident with Staff Cadet Everingham… “The plaintiff (Mr Knight) alleges that shortly after the incident with (senior staff cadet) Corporal Thompson, Staff Cadet Nicholas Everingham ran at the plaintiff shouting abuse. This is alleged to be an assault because “the plaintiff was fearful that Staff Cadet Everingham was about to engage a more severe assault of him than the one that actually occurred”.
Further, Mr Knight copped two additional assault or battery incidents inflicted by senior cadets against Mr Knight took place away from his workplace.
Incident 9: 30 May 1987: The first Private Bin incident… “The plaintiff (Mr Knight) alleges that he attended the Private Bin nightclub in Canberra to celebrate the birthday of a female friend. He alleges that when he was sitting at a table the third defendant, (senior staff cadet in the role of Kokoda Company Sergeant Major) Philip Reed, approached his table and ordered him to return to barracks. The plaintiff declined.
Mr Reed is alleged to have “grabbed him by the front of his jumper and began pushing him backwards”. It is alleged that Mr Reed only stopped because he was instructed to do so by one of the club’s bouncers. The plaintiff is alleged to have been fearful that Mr Reed was about to engage in a more severe assault of him than the one that actually occurred. Thus, the allegation appears to be of both a battery and an assault.”
Incident 10: 31 May 1987: second Private Bin incident… “This is alleged to have occurred later during the same visit to the Private Bin nightclub. Philip Reed is alleged to have approached the plaintiff and ordered him to return to barracks. The plaintiff alleges: “When an unidentified civilian intervened a fight was started by Company Sergeant Major Reed and (senior staff cadet) Lance Corporal Thorp.”
During this altercation the plaintiff was repeatedly assaulted by Company Sergeant Major Reed, Lance Corporal Thorp and an unidentified staff cadet. The plaintiff was held from behind and was repeatedly punched around the head and body. The injury alleged is bruising and a severely broken nose for which the plaintiff was treated at the Royal Canberra Hospital.”
Of relevant note, it was this attack on Mr Knight that drove him to seek a means of proactive self-defence and a threatening mob of senior cadets, so Mr Knight desperately resorted to purchasing a switchblade knife and using it to defend himself against his lead tormentor Philip Reed.
The initial song title was to be ‘Switchblade Knife’. But a producing decision was made to go PC so as not to be seen to incite violence. But the lyrics remain intact and pretty much convey what the songs was all about. Dire Straits released the song in 1978, nine years prior to 1987.
Song’s Original Lyrics:
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1d:
It is a documented fact that on 28 May 2014 the then first Chair of the D.A.R.T. , The Honourable Len Roberts-Smith QC, wrote to the Minister of Defence and the Attorney General confirming that:
- “Mr Knight’s complaint has not been assessed but on the face of it appears to be plausible and within scope”. (page 1)
- “I advise that in the absence of any formal direction from you the Taskforce will, of course act in accordance with its Terms of Refence (ToR). They impose no restriction on any individual or category of complainant whose complaints of abuse in Defence are assessed as within the scope of the ToR and are plausible, being unable to receive an appropriate reparation payment, or any other outcome from the Taskforce” (page 3)
- “The Taskforces is aware of one other complainant who has previously been incarcerated (by about which we have jo details). This complainant has been awarded a reparation payment of $35,000, for abuse (workplace bullying and harassment) and Defence mismanagement at RMC Duntroon in 1968.” (page 3)
Source: The Respondent’s Annexure ‘MAS-2’
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1e:
No, the Respondent’s claim is incorrect. In 2016 the D.A.R.T. did not advise that reparation would not be payable. Rather, correctly, the D.A.R.T. in its 2-page letter to Mr Knight dated 20 May 2016 was headed “Minister’s decision regarding the eligibility of incarcerated persons for reparation payments”.
[See Exhibit “JK-4”]
This D.A.R.T. letter only served to communicate a “new policy decision” of 5 May 2016 by the Minister of Defence and Minister for Justice which had the effect to:
“Direct the Taskforce that no reparation payment should be made where a person has been convicted of a serious crime.”
This belated “new policy decision” amounted to a political overruling and usurpation of the D.A.R.T. , thus undermining the D.A.R.T. ’s charter and independence to perform its statutory functions in line with its Terms of Reference . This political “policy decision” was retrospective to Mr Knight’s application that he lodged with the D.A.R.T. back on 26 November 2013, some 2 years and six months prior! It politically served to target and exclude Mr Knight, and Mr Knight alone, from his due entitlement to financial reparations under the Defence Abuse Reparations Scheme (D.A.R.S.) as set up by the very Australia Government back in 2012.
It is a fact that, firstly, at the time of Mr Knight’s (95+ page ‘Personal Account’) application lodged with the D.A.R.T., and secondly at the time of the D.A.R.T. ’s 8-page ‘Assessment Note’ of Mr Knight’s claim that no ineligibility clause existed for access to D.A.R.S. due to an applicant having been “convicted of a serious crime”.
The Australian Government was making up rules as it went along for individuals it didn’t like, like Mr Knight, and others.
Perhaps in Mr Knight’s case, his copping of incessant criminal abuse under Duntroon’s senior cadets’ bastardisation of junior cadets’ culture and Mr Knight’s retaliation resort to criminal acts – were cause and effect under his temporal psychotic state of mind, just 16 days after Duntroon’s extrication of him? Duntroon bastardisation and Hoddle Street are inextricably linked – the latter would never have happened without the former.
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1f:
To facilitate procedural clarity for the Court, a timeline of all these goings-on is warranted in order to gain an overview perspective, to realise the considerable delay in D.A.R.T. ’s processing of Mr Knight’s claim, and of the odd sequence of events.
This is given that the Respondent has chosen to bring Mr Knight’s old claim to the former ‘D.A.R.T. ’ into the frame, despite Mr Knight’s new claim against the Australian Government’s superseded ‘D.F.O.’.
Mr KNIGHT’s D.A.R.T./ D.F.O. CORRESPONDENCE TIMELINE
| Date | Document/Event |
| 26 Nov 2013 | Mr Knight’s old claim of Defence abuse Application lodged with the former D.A.R.T. with evidentiary ‘Personal Account’ (95 pages) plus 13 attachments
|
| 26 Nov 2014 | D.A.R.T.’s inaugural Chair Len Roberts-Smith resigns, replaced by his deputy Robert Cornall
|
| 13 Jan 2015 | D.A.R.T. Assessment Note (8-pages) (but never sent by D.A.R.T. to Mr Knight)
(Obtained years later by Mr Knight through his Freedom of Information request via the D.F.O. (circa 16 March 2023)
|
| 31 Mar 2016 | D.A.R.T.’s Final Report to the Australia Government by Chair Robert Cornall
Legacy Arrangements: Recommend that the Taskforce Restorative Programme to be extended beyond 30 Jun 2016.
|
| 5 May 2016
|
Australian Government’s Minister of Defence and the Minister for Justice joint retrospective new “policy decision” to add a new parameter of ineligibility of reparations payment to an applicant “convicted of a serious crime”, so to direct D.A.R.T. to deny specifically Mr Knight his reparation claim.
|
| 20 May 2016 | D.A.R.T.’s 1-page internal 2 recommendations letter/memo from (redacted name) as Director of Strategic Co-ordination to D.A.R.T. Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer.
This letter is for D.A.R.T. Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer to agree to deny Mr Knight reparation payment due to the joint “policy decision” directive by the Australian Government’s Minister of Defence and the Minister for Justice. The 2 recommendations are agreed to and the letter is signed by Kirsty Windeyer.
(This letter obtained years later by Mr Knight by through his Freedom of Information request via the D.F.O. (circa 16 March 2023)
|
| 20 May 2016 | D.A.R.T. letter signed by Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer to Mr Knight citing the joint “policy decision” directive by the Australian Government’s Minister of Defence and the Minister for Justice, that “following the Minsters’ decisions” D.A.R.T. “assessing” (contrary to D.A.R.T.s’ previous ‘Assessment Note’) that Mr Knight is deemed (politically) ineligible for any reparation payment.
|
| 1 Dec 2016 | The Defence Force Ombudsman established under the Ombudsman Act 1976 and Regulations 2017 as a branch of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
|
| 16 Mar 2023 | Mr Knight’s new Complaint of Historical Abuse (122 pages) plus 20 attachments to D.F.O.
|
| 21 Mar 2023 | D.F.O.’s rejection letter to Mr Knight, claiming matter was “dealt with” by D.A.R.T.
|
| 20 Apr 2023 | Mr Knight lodges complaint against D.F.O. in the Federal Court of Australia
|
| 29 Nov 2023 | Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) VID364 original hearing date, subsequently adjourned at Mr Knight’s request to 4 March 2024. |
| 16 Feb 2024 | D.F.O. as Respondent files its submissions to the FCA
|
| 4 Mar 2024 | Hearing Date of Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) VID364
|
This timeline reveals the excessive delays by the D.A.R.T. and the superseding D.F.O. to assess Mr Knights two respective claims/complaints of his claim of Defence-multiple abuse, in sequence, these three agencies of the Australian Government has repeatedly mishandled it.
It all stems from the Australian Government’s mishandling and denial of systemic abuse at its institution, RMC Duntroon.
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1g:
It is a documented fact is that the D.A.R.T. in its 8-page ‘Assessment Note’ dated 13 January 2015 recognised Mr Knight’s claims of multiple instances of physical abuse and workplace harassment and bullying (characterised as “targeted bastardisation”) inflicted by multiple senior cadets as part of a system sadistic culture at Duntroon that dates back to 1912.
It is emphasised that the date of D.A.R.T. ’s Assessment Note’ of 13 January 2015 constituted a significant delay from the date Mr Knight lodged his application to the D.F.O. on 26 November 2013; some 14 months prior!
It is a documented fact also that the D.A.R.T. failed to send its ‘Assessment Note’ to Mr Knight. This was not at the time of the Assessment Note, nor with the D.A.R.T. 2-page letter to Mr Knight signed 20 May 2016.
Instead, it is a documented fact that Mr Knight first became aware of the existence of this Assessment Note as part of his new complaint to the D.F.O. of 16 March 2023 by way of his Freedom of Information request for the D.A.R.T. records of his case that Mr Knight obtained via D.F.O. from the Attorney General’s department.
The documented fact is also that Mr Knight provided new and additional evidence of this abuse to the D.F.O. in his 122-page ‘Complaint of Historical Abuse’ as part of his new complaint that he lodged with D.F.O. on 16 March 2023 [Exhibit “JK-3”]
Applicant’s Rebuttal #1h:
The D.A.R.T. failed to notify Mr Knight of its Assessment Note dated 15 January 2015.
Critically, this Assessment Note reveals that Mr Knight’s complaint case of being subjected to both physical abuse and workplace harassment and bullying by senior cadets whilst training as a junior Army officer staff cadet at RMC Duntroon in 1987 was well within scope of warranting reparation payment by D.A.R.T. to Mr Knight.
Yes, the D.A.R.T. failed to “notify Mr Knight of any decision in respect of other potential D.A.R.T. outcomes, such as counselling”.
In fact, the only notification by the D.A.R.T. to Mr Knight was in the D.A.R.T.’s 2-page letter signed 20 May 2016 to Mr Knight stating that the D.A.R.T. had been effectively overruled by two politicians, the Minister of Defence and Minister for Justice (so-called).
In the D.A.R.T. Third Interim Report by Chair Len Roberts-Smith QC to the Australian Government dated 19 September 2013, key outcomes deliverable by the D.A.R.T. to complainants of Defence abuse were identified and described (at pages 8 to 15); these being:
- Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme
- Restorative Engagement Program
- Counselling
- Referral for criminal investigation and possible prosecution
- Referral for disciplinary action, administrative sanctions or other action
Despite the D.A.R.T. assessor in Mr Knight’s case accepting Mr Knight’s evidence in its Assessment Note and recommending each of the above key deliverable outcomes be delivered to Mr Knight, not one of the above five key outcomes was delivered.
In the D.A.R.T. Chair Robert Cornall’s Final Report letter to the Australian Government dated 31 March 2016, a number of outstanding tasks for the Taskforce were listed, namely:
- Remaining counselling (of Defence-multiple abused claimants)
- Restorative engagement outcomes
- Dealing with freedom of information and other access requests (by claimants, including that by Mr Knight)
- Details of the Taskforces referral to police in regard to possible criminal offences (by perpetrator of the Defence abuse)
Further, this Final Report section 9.2 headed ‘Remaining counselling outcomes’ (page 54) reads as follows:
[SOURCE: The D.A.R.T.’s Final Report, 31 March 2016, page 54]
It is a documented fact that the D.A.R.T. failed categorically in its delegated duties under the Australian Government’s original Terms of Reference (amended June 2015, and 11-Nov-2015) with respect to Mr Knight’s Defence-multiple abuse application of 26 November 2013.
Respondent’s Paragraph #2:
“On 16 March 2023, Mr Knight submitted to the respondent (D.F.O.) a renewed complaint which was based on his original D.A.R.T. submission.
On 21 March 2023 the D.F.O. advised that the renewed complaint was an ‘excluded complaint’ under the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 (Cth), because it was the same in substance as a complaint that had been ‘dealt with’ by the D.A.R.T. .
As a result of this Decision, the D.F.O. could not respond to the complaint by taking actions and making recommendations as set out in s 14(1)(a) of the Regulations.”
Applicant’s Rebuttal #2a:
The Respondent is incorrect in fact in its assertions/re-constructions of events in its submitted Paragraph 2.
Mr Knight on 16 March 2023, submitted to the respondent (D.F.O.) a new complaint of Defence-multiple abuse.
To be clear, and to reiterate, on 26 November 2013, yes, the Applicant (Mr Knight) indeed initially applied to the then ‘D.A.R.T. ’ including his 95-page ‘Personal Account’ with 13 attachments detailing Defence abuse at the Royal Military College of Australia at Duntroon during his Army training January-June 1987 whilst serving as an Army officer cadet. [Exhibit “JK-1”].
The D.A.R.T. failed to respond to Mr Knight until its two-page letter of 20 May 2016, some two years and six months after his lodged application. The D.A.R.T. then dismissively rejecting Mr Knight’s application outright that he was (retrospectively) now ineligible for a reparation payment.
The timing of this letter was two months after the D.A.R.T.’s twelfth and Final Report to the Australian Government back on 31 March 2016. This timing significant indicates that the D.A.R.T. under replacement Chair, Robert Cornall, was in the process of winding up D.A.R.T.’s unresolved ‘loose ends’ of its Defence-abuse applicants – presumably from political pressure by directives from the Australian Government.
The D.A.R.T. and the D.F.O. were never part of the independent Judiciary, rather each another government QANGO football of the incumbent government of the day, to set up and quash at political whim.
However, no Australian Government of the day can ever rule that a Court of the Judiciary be shut down or wound up. Such is consistent with the democratic principal of the ‘Separation of Powers’ as wisely enshrined in the Australian Constitution.
In this current Federal Court of Australia case [VID364], the Applicant in his NEW complaint as dated 16 March 2023 to the Defence Force Ombudsman (the D.F.O.) was NOT a complaint against the former Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (D.A.R.T. ). Rather it was a new modified complaint with new evidence to the D.F.O. – indeed a new complaint to the D.F.O. containing new detailed evidence – Mr Knight’s 122-page ‘Complaint of Historical Abuse’ plus 22 attachments submitted to the D.F.O. on 16 March 2023. [Exhibit “JK-3”]
Therefore, Mr Knight’s new complaint to the D.F.O. was NOT an “excluded complaint” as defined under the Ombudsman Regulations 2017, since:
- The A.R.T. had NOT COMPLETED dealing with Mr Knight’s Application for Reparation (lodged 26 November 2013) as evidenced in the D.A.R.T.’s Assessment Note dated 13 January 2015. [Exhibit “JK-2”]
A copy of that 8-page Assessment Note is reproduced below.
By actually reading it, reveals the D.A.R.T.’s acknowledgement and acceptance that Mr Knight suffered multiple instances of suffering serious physical abuse and workplace harassment and bullying inflicted by named senior cadets at RMC Duntroon during 1987 and in many respects, Mr Knight was deemed by the D.A.R.T.’s assessor as being eligible for reparation.
- The A.R.T. had NOT COMMUNICATED its Assessment Note to Mr Knight at any time. The only way that Mr Knight was able to obtain this Assessment Note was via his Freedom of Information request through the Attorney General during Mr Knight’s current dispute case against the D.F.O in the FCA. This was long after the D.A.R.T. had been wound up by the Australian Government by the end of 2016.
- The F.O. ELECTED TO TOTALLY IGNORE Mr Knight’s second NEW detailed complaint of Defence-multiple abuse that he lodged with the DFO dated 16 March 2023, including new evidence. The D.F.O. in its immediate 1-page ‘auto-rejection’ letter to Mr Knight letter by someone at the D.F.O. just called “Susan” dated 21 March 2023, elected to “not respond” to Mr Knights new complaint, taking no actions and making no recommendations in respect to his complaint before it.
- The D.F.O. now in its submission dated 16 February 2014 to the FCA in this case, wrongly relies upon Section 14(1)(a) of the Regulations. For the convenience of the Court, this cited Ombudsman Regulations 2017 Part 3, Section 14(1)(a) reads verbatim as follows:
As clarified in this Applicant Rebuttal ‘2a’, as well as in the Applicant’s Rebuttals ‘1f’ and ‘1g’, Mr Knight’s application satisfies all these three criteria to be deemed a ‘new complaint’. It is quite different to the old claim to the D.A.R.T insofar as:
- Mr Knight’s new (and his only) complaint letter of 16 March 2023 to the D.F.O. contains different evidence of his Defence-abuse;
- Mr Knight had on 26 November 2013 lodged a 95-page ‘Personal Account’ Application (claim) for Reparation (by statutory declaration) of his abuse with 13 pages of attachments to the A.R.T. Whereas, Mr Knight on 16 March 2023 lodged a 122-page ‘Complaint of Historical Abuse’ with 22 pages of attachments to the D.F.O.;
- The context of the D.F.O.’s 1-page auto-rejection letter to Mr Knight dated 21 March 2023 is loaded with falsehoods, namely:
- Mr Knight’s new complaint to the D.F.O. was not a “report” (as wrongly referred to in the opening paragraph of D.F.O.’s letter);
- Mr Knight did NOT apply to the D.F.O. under the Defence Abuse Reparations Scheme (D.A.R.S.) ” (again as wrongly referred to in the opening paragraph of the D.F.O.’s letter). The D.A.R.S. had been a previous reparations scheme administered by the D.A.R.T. (2012-2016);
- Instead, in Mr Knight’s letter to the current D.F.O., Mr Knight simply lodged a fresh complaint to the D.F.O. regarding the bastardization he was subjected to at RMC Duntroon. This was because the D.A.R.T. had failed to deal with his abuse claim from 2013. The D.A.R.T only produced an incomplete ‘Assessment Note’ that it never sent to Mr Knight;
- Mr Knight simply requested the D.F.O. to investigate his complaint of abuse. This task such being the D.F.O.s charter under the (Commonwealth) Ombudsman Act 1976 Part IIA and Part IIB, and under the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 Part 3;
- Mr Knight also included in this same letter to the D.F.O., his complaint about how the D.A.R.T. had mishandled his Application for Reparation claim.
- The D.A.R.T.’s ‘Assessment Note’ of Mr Knights claim dated 13 January 2015, but only obtained by Mr Knight many years later in 2023, reveals that the D.A.R.T. had failed to complete its assessment process of Mr Knight’s claim. Mr Knight in his letter specifically highlights the failure by the DART to refer his assailant to ACT Police. Extract from Mr Knight’s letter:
- The D.F.O. ignored this complaint in its auto-rejection letter to Mr Knight;
- Mr Knight included references to three previous written correspondences he had had with the D.F.O. on this matter dating back to 2 January 2020. The D.F.O. ignored this correspondence in its auto-rejection letter to Mr Knight;
- The DFO didn’t even read any of Mr Knight’s claim documents, and it seems evident didn’t even read his letter properly. Fundamentally, the D.F.O. did not do its job in Mr Knight’s case.
For the convenience of this Court, respective copies of (1) the D.A.R.T.’s ‘Assessment Note’, (2) Mr Knight’s covering 2-page letter of New Complaint to the D.F.O., and (3) the D.F.O.’s ‘auto-rejection’ letter to Mr Knight are provided below.
(1) D.A.R.T.’s ‘ASSESSMENT NOTE’ (8-pages)
(2) MR KNIGHT’S LETTER TO THE D.F.O. (2-pages)
(3) The D.F.O.’s ‘AUTO-REJECTION’ LETTER TO MR KNIGHT (1-page)
The D.F.O.’s last line motto: “Influencing systemic improvements in public administration”
Well, certainly not in Mr Knight’s case.
