INTRO:  This is the fourth article of a series of three 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:

1. KNIGHT v DFO (2023-2024)
2. Knight v DFO in the Federal Court 2023 – the D.F.O.’s Submission 16-Feb-2024
3. KNIGHT v DFO (FCA) – Knight’s rebuttals against DFO’s submissions (PART 1 of 3)
4. KNIGHT v DFO (FCA) – Knight’s rebuttals against DFO’s submissions (PART 2 of 3)
5. 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.

PART 2 OF 3

Respondent’s (DFO) Paragraph #3:

By application filed on 24 May 2023 , Mr Knight seeks mandamus and a declaration on the basis that his renewed complaint is not an ‘excluded complaint’.

In essence he argues that his original complaint was not ‘dealt with’ by the D.A.R.T.  because it did not complete a process of finally determining all possible outcomes: see [29]-[38] of his Further Written Submissions dated 19 January 2024 (AS).

Other arguments raised by Mr Knight, which go to questions of whether the D.F.O. can or should take particular action in relation to his renewed complaint , are misconceived: the D.F.O. has not considered, and refused to take, any particular action; the D.F.O. has concluded that no such function is available under the Regulations.

Applicant KNIGHT’s Rebuttal #3a:

The Respondent has its facts wrong.  Mr Knight had filed his letter outlining his two complaints to the D.F.O. back on 16 March 2023, NOT 24 May 2023.

Mr Knight’s Complaint #1 to the D.F.O.:

“I wish to lodge a fresh complaint pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) and the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 (Cth), regarding the bastardization I was subjected to whilst a junior staff cadet at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, during January-May  1987.”

Mr Knight’s Complaint #2 to the D.F.O.:

“Please note that my renewed complaint also contains a complaint in relation to how my original complaint was handled by the D.A.R.T.”

Note that Mr Knight is his original Defence multiple-abuse claim to the D.A.R.T. included detailed evidence of his physical assault and battery incidents inflicted upon him by senior cadets at RMC Duntroon numbering ten such incidents.  The document complied with the D.A.R.T.’s individual claimant lodgement rules and is entitled ‘PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF STAFF CADET KNIGHT RE: RMC DUNTROON’.  [FCA Case VID364, Exhibit “JK-1”]

Mr Knight’s complaints as such were made directly to the ACT Police, (NOT to the D.A.R.T). Those complaints were effectively ignored by the ACT Police.

Applicant KNIGHT’s Rebuttal #3b:

Mr Knight in his completed submission to the D.F.O. is fully deemed to be an eligible complainant in all respects under the Ombudsman Act 1976 Part IIA ‘Establishment, functions, powers and duties of the Defence force Ombudsman’ and under the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 Part 3 s (14) and (14A).

Mr Knight complied fully with the D.F.O.’s complaint submission rules.

Yet, the D.F.O. has elected to immediately ignore Mr Knight’s two complaints included new evidence and rejected his complaint on spurious grounds as previously rebutted herein.   Mr Knight lodged his new complain on Friday 16^th.  The DFO rejected it just four business days later of Wednesday 21 March 2023.

So, Mr Knight has had no choice but to seek proper legal judgment of this case by the independent Judiciary – the Federal Court of Australia.    Mr Knight, subsequently as Applicant, filed his submission to the Federal Court on 20 April 2023.

It is hoped that natural justice will prevail, in comparison to the Australian Government’s half-hearted attempts with its D.A.R.T. and the D.F.O. – supposedly established, though under loose and vague terms of reference and legislation to properly “deal with” systemic serious abuse allegation in Defence.

Both political qangos have thus far proven to be ‘toothless tigers’ subject to political influence and undermining by politicians of the governmental political parties of the day.

Applicant KNIGHT’s Rebuttal #3c:    Applicant’s Requested Outcomes from FCA Case VID364

Mr Knight seeks a fair hearing by the Judiciary in the Federal Court to order, that the D.F.O. in writing to Mr Knight:

1. Immediately retract the D.F.O.’s ‘auto-rejection’ letter to Mr Knight dated 21 March 23, and in doing so, apologise to Mr Knight for the D.F.O.’s gross mishandling of Mr Knight’s abuse-related two complaints in that letter, and acknowledge its rejection and tone was contrary to the sections and spirit of the Ombudsman Act 1976 Part IIA ‘Establishment, functions, powers and duties of the Defence force Ombudsman’ and its breaches of the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 Part 3;
2. Accepts that Mr Knight’s ‘claim’ to the D.A.R.T was not a ‘complaint’, but in fact a ‘Duntroon abuse claim’ for reparation payment under the Australian Government’s Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme (2012-2016) for the Defence-multiple abuse he suffered at RMCC Duntroon during 1987’
3. Accepts that Mr Knight’s two complaints letter 16 March 2023 to the D.F.O. was not made to the D.A.R.T., rather it was an abuse claim for reparation payment made to the D.A.R.T., and that the D.F.O. therefore accepts this claim means that Mr Knight’s ‘new complaint’ to the D.F.O. is not an ‘excluded complaint’ as defined in the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 Part 1 (5) ‘Definitions’, citing:

“Excluded complaint means a complaint that:

• • • • was previously made to, and dealt with by, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce; or
      • is the same in substance as a complaint that was previously made to, and dealt with by, the Defence Abuse Response.”

4. Accepts that the D.F.O.’s precursor, the D.A.R.T, failed to properly “deal with” Mr Knight’s old Duntroon abuse claim lodged on 23 November 2013;
5. Fully recognises Mr Knight’s submitted Defence-multiple abuse incidents [Exhibit “JK-3”] as constituting “the most serious forms of abuse” under Ombudsman Regulations 2017 s 14A (1)(a)(b) ‘Payments to complainants – certain new complaints’ and the D.F.O. recommending a reparation payment up to $45,000 to Mr Knight, as an eligible complainant;
6. Duly accept and process Mr Knight’s listed two complaints as outlined in Mr Knight’s letter to the DFO dated 16 March 2023 [Applicant’s Rebuttal 2A (2)];
7. Properly carry out its statutory functions in response to Mr Knight’s complaints;
8. Fully consider that given the multiple most serious forms of abuse Mr Knight suffered, that the D.F.O. recommend that the Defence Secretary make a reparation payment of up to $45,000 to Mr Knight;
9. Arrange to provide appropriate counselling to Mr Knight as due recognition of “the most serious forms of abuse” Mr Knight suffered on multiple occasions at RMC Duntroon;
10. Investigate, assess and refer the identified Duntroon senior cadet assailants to police;

Applicant KNIGHT’s Rebuttal #3d:   Mr Knight’s claim was categorically NOT “Dealt With” by D.A.R.T. 

Mr Knight’s Duntroon abuse claim to the D.A.R.T was only partially “dealt with” by the D.A.R.T.  The only evidence of this was in its Assessment Note.   It was the D.A.R.T.’s internal document only.

This was only obtained my Mr Knight years later via his Freedom of Information application through the Attorney General.   Else, there are no other known actions or documents by the D.A.R.T. that show it “dealt with” Mr Knight’s multiple abuse incidents that he suffered at RMC Duntroon.

Pages 1 to 5 of the D.A.R.T.’s Assessment Note document the multiple abuse incidents that senior cadets inflicted upon Mr Knight RMC Duntroon.  However, that Assessment Note was left incomplete in many ways.

For instance, the D.A.R.T.’s Assessment Note at page 7 verifies Mr Knight’s alleged abusers numbered 9 senior staff cadets within Mr Knight’s training company, Kokoda Company, at the time of his abuse at RMC Duntroon.   Their names are listed in the D.A.R.T.’s Assessment Note and identified by reference numbers.

Alleged abusers  – NOT “Dealt with”

Those alleged abusers were confirmed by Defence at D.A.R.T.s Request for Further Information (RFI) 2562 and listed below at page 3 of the Assessment Note.

In addition, a group of five unnamed senior staff cadets from RMC Duntroon’s Kapyong Company are also accused my Mr Knight of inflicting serious physical abuse (battery) upon him. [See the Applicant’s Rebuttal #1c Incident 2, 17 March 1987: “Bishing” incident].

This also identified in the D.A.R.T.’s Assessment Note at page 4, as follows:

So, although the D.A.R.T. became well aware of the identity of the alleged assailants, it took no further action to refer and recommend these alleged assailants and Mr Knight’s abuse allegations to police, nor to Defence for commensurate disciplinary action if found guilty.

DART was thus again in breach of its statutory functions.   That is “in a broad and general way” Mr Knight’s Duntroon abuse claim was NOT “dealt with” by the D.A.R.T.  [to quote the Respondent’s submission paragraph 26].

The Assessment Note at page 8, lists:

• “outcomes” and
• “consent to refer the matter to the Crime Group for action”

…be each a follow-up action as part of the D.A.R.T.s Complainant Liaison (that is, with Mr Knight).

Yet the D.A.R.T. failed to deal with either.

Mr Knight, in his letter to the Respondent’s legal representative, Australian Government Solicitor, dated 9 January 2024 [Respondent’s Annexure MAS-1], ahead of this hearing, was (and continues to be concerned about the perception of ministerial interference in why the D.A.R.T. “precluded” Mr Knight from “other outcomes”, as follows from his letter, thus:

It appears that Australian Government Solicitor failed to respond to this letter of Mr Knight.

Further, the Assessment Note at page 8, lists those alleged abusers of Mr Knight still serving in Defence, as at 13 January 2015, the date of the Assessment Report, as follows:

Given that the Respondent has presented no evidence to the contrary about the D.A.R.T. actually following up its ‘Other Referral Action’ (per above) with neither police nor Defence, the presumption is that again D.A.R.T. failed to deal with its referral action on behalf of Mr Knight and his Duntroon abuse claim.

Further, the D.A.R.T.’s ‘Assessment Note’ of Mr Knight’s Duntroon abuse claim for reparation payment was never actually communicated or sent by the D.A.R.T. to Mr Knight.

Core in the DARTS Terms of Reference of November 2012 is clause (iii) which reads as follows:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [111.97 KB]

Key Failings by the DART in Mr Knight’s abuse reparations claim case:

• The D.A.R.T. had continually failed to maintain “close consultation” with Mr Knight with his claim.
• Mr Knight had lodged his abuse claim to the D.A.R.T. back on 26 November 2013, yet, the first response from the D.A.R.T. to Mr Knight noted by the Applicant’s annexures was 26 May 2016.
• So almost a 3-year delay and notably missing D.A.R.T.’s prior Assessment Note 13 January 2015.
• In the absence of evidence from the D.A.R.T. nor from the Respondent, it can be concluded that the ‘Assessment Note’ was treated by D.A.R.T. as purely its internal use document within the D.A.R.T.
• Mr Knight’s abuse claim to the D.A.R.T. for reparation payment was again NOT “dealt with” by the D.A.R.T. – neither in completeness nor transparency, due to:

1. The D.A.R.T.’s failure to follow up its assessor’s multiple follow-up recommendations.
2. The D.A.R.T.’s failure to communicate with Mr Knight about the D.A.R.T.’s dealings with his claim.

Applicant KNIGHT’s Rebuttal #3e:   The D.F.O. dishonestly relied upon the D.A.R.T.

The D.F.O. in its 1-page ‘auto-rejection’ letter response to Mr Knight dated 21 March 2023, [Exhibit “JK-4”], dishonestly relied solely upon the D.A.R.T.’s 2-page rejection letter to Mr Knight dated 20 May 2016.

However, the Respondent’s submitted annexures “MAS-2”, “MAS-3” and “MAS-4” now expose the never before mentioned facts.  These amount to a series of three confidential letter exchanges between the D.A.R.T. and its selected Australian Government ministers respectively dated 28 May 2014,  5 March 2015 and 24 June 2015.

First, this confidential correspondence is telling that the D.F.O. holds privileged access to D.A.R.T. records, perhaps all of them.

Second, during that time period (2013-2016), the D.A.R.T. was holding on to Mr Knight’s claim for reparation payment that he had lodged with the D.A.R.T. back on 26 November 2013.

Materially, those three letters reveal mischievous shenanigans by the two successive D.A.R.T. Chairs during that time to seek to deliberately undermine and deny specifically Mr Knight’s Defence abuse claim through external ministerial means to then rely upon a ‘change of rules interpretation’ by the D.A.R.T. outside its Terms of Reference.

This was an underhanded act by both D.A.R.T. Chairs, Major General (retd) Len Roberts-Smith QC who was followed later by Chair Robert Cornall AO, who had been deputy to Chair Roberts-Smith.

To Her Honour, a re-read of “MAS-2”, “MAS-3” and “MAS-4” is pertinent to appreciate this line of argument now posited.

This now revealed secret correspondence exposes how the D.A.R.T. senior management 7-months before D.A.R.T.s Assessment Note (13 January 2015) of Mr Knight’s abuse claim had been otherwise considered by the D.A.R.T. assessors to, on the balance of probabilities, factual stand up as “eligible”, “plausible”, and “in scope”.

There is no mention in that D.F.O. letter to Mr Knight dated 21 March 2023, [Exhibit “JK-4”], that the D.F.O. had actually read any of the new evidence that Mr Knight provided in his two complaints letter to the D.F.O. dated 16-March 2023;  nor that the D.F.O. had read Mr Knight’s included second complaint to the D.F.O. against the D.A.R.T.’s mishandling of his original claim for reparation payment.

The Respondent’s annexure MAS-2 reveals correspondence initiated from the D.A.R.T. Chair Roberts-Smith to Australian Government ministers (politicians) on 28 May 2014. Those two ministers addressed in this letter being Minister for Defence Senator the Hon David Johnson and Attorney-General Senator the Hon George Brandis QC MP.

This letter having the subject header as follows:  “Incarcerated Complainants to the Taskforce”

Materially, in Chair Roberts-Smith’s letter he initiated raising an unrelated factor about claimant Mr Knight with these two ministers outside the scope of the D.A.R.T. Terms of Reference.   That matter was “claimants who are incarcerated at the time of lodging their complaint”.  [Annexure MAS-2, page 1, paragraph 3].

It is emphasised that the initial Chair of the D.A.R.T. was Major General (retd) Len Roberts-Smith QC, having held a top rank in Defence.

So, despite being an eminent Queen’s Counsel, this appointment of a previous senior Defence office-holder heading up this Australian Government agency to impartially assess allegations of abuse in Defence, publicly suggests a perceive conflict of interest  by the D.A.R.T. (subsequently effectively renamed Defence Force Ombudsman (D.F.O.) under the Australian Government’s department of its Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Mr Knight, as one of three specific claimants for reparation payment, happened to have been incarcerated at the time of lodging his Duntroon multiple abuse claim.

Yet the D.A.R.T. Chair Roberts-Smith, in his letter to the two ministers clarifies at page 1 “Mr Knight’s complaint has not yet been assessed but of the face of it…appears plausible and within scope”.

Indeed, it would seem possible, if not likely, that due to the seriousness of Mr Knight’s abuse at RMC Duntroon, that the D.A.R.T. was considering paying the similar maximum reparation payment up to $50,000 also to Mr Knight.

The relevant extract of that D.A.R.T. Chair’s letter at page 1 to these two ministers of 28 May 2014  (the Respondent’s submitted Annexure “MAS-2”) thus:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.23 MB]

The D.A.R.T. Chair Roberts-Smith then in his same letter, pointed out that the D.A.R.T. “Terms of Reference imposed no restriction on any claimant (alluding to his aforementioned ‘incarceration’) that would prevent the DART making a reparation payment to said claimant.

The relevant extract of D.A.R.T. Chair’s letter (at page 1) to these two ministers dated 28 May 2014:

Chair Roberts-Smith also highlights his own concerns about the “exceptional nature of these cases”, and states to the two ministers “your advice is sought as to whether you wish to consider making an ‘in-principle’ direction (to the DART)…“on grounds of public interest”.

Indeed, in his letter, Chair Roberts-Smith specifically invites these two ministers to respond to preclude the D.A.R.T. from making any reparation payment to Mr Knight on the basis of Mr Knight’s incarceration alone. This is despite Chair Roberts-Smith in said letter having stated “on the face of it to find Mr Knights’ claim plausible and within scope for payment”.

To bolster his argument that the two ministers should issue such a directive to the D.A.R.T., Chair Roberts-Smith then chose in his same letter to denigrate Mr Knight over one a half pages (see page 3 and 4) offering additional extraneous research about Mr Knight’s subsequent crimes and incarceration circumstances; such matters were completely unrelated to Mr Knight’s Defence multiple-abuse claim to D.A.R.T.

Materially, the D.A.R.T. Terms of Reference includes clause (iv):

The Taskforce (D.A.R.T.) is to:

For the D.A.R.T. to have undertaken such additional extraneous research specifically into Mr Knight’s subsequent crimes and incarceration circumstances was not just irrelevant to his abuse allegations but inappropriate under the D.A.R.T’s Terms of Reference.

Mr Knight’s subsequent crimes and incarceration circumstances were in no way relevant to the D.A.R.T.’s consideration of the D.A.R.T.’s handling of Mr Knight’s particular allegations.

Further, materially, the D.A.R.T. Terms of Reference includes clause (v):

The Taskforce is to:

The D.A.R.T. failed to do take into account the rights and interested of Defence abuse victim Mr Knight.  Instead, it embarked upon a concerted campaign to coax selected politicians to direct the D.A.R.T. to reject Mr Knight’s abuse claim altogether.

For the D.A.R.T. to research into Mr Knight’s subsequent criminality after Duntroon and to then share this information with the ministers was in breach of Mr Knight’s privacy rights and interests.

This suggests not just a lack of impartiality on the part of Chair Roberts-Smith, but a considerable degree of his personal prejudice against Mr Knight.  From the text of this letter, Chair Roberts-Smith took a personal dislike toward Mr Knight, if not malevolence.

Then concluding his letter, Chair Roberts-Smith went even a step further, effectively issuing an ultimatum to these two ministers, that if they didn’t issue the D.A.R.T. with such a ministerial directive to specially deny an incarcerated claimant reparation payment, the D.A.R.T. would have no choice but to make a reparations payment to Mr Knight.   (Read below from pages 4 and 5 of the Chair’s same letter):

So, this letter was a deliberate initiated attempt by Chair Roberts-Smith to sabotage specifically Mr Knight’s claim (for what unknown motive or coercion?) – to deliberately have the D.A.R.T. overturn the default outcome to pay Mr Knight by rejecting Mr Knight as being ruled ineligible for the payment.

But to do so would appear on the face of it, contrived, clearly retrospective and patently outside the D.A.R.T.’s Terms of Reference.   Perhaps Chair Roberts-Smith thought he could secretly get away with scheming such an underhanded counter-measure during DART’s stalled its 2 ½ year assessment of Mr Knight’s claim?

Was Chair Roberts-Smith QC attempting relying upon a D.A.R.T.-style political interference by the two ministers as a means of avoiding reparations payment to Mr Knight?  His text and tone in Mr Roberts-Smith’s letter would indicate so.

The timing of this letter to the two ministers was 28 May 2014, notably about 7 months prior to the D.A.R.T.’s internal Assessment Note dated 13 January 2015 which all but approved Mr Knight’s claim for reparation payment to the maximum level.

By that time from 1 December 2014 the D.A.R.T. had a new Chair in Robert Cornall AO, who had acted as Roberts-Smith deputy.  The initial Chair Len Roberts Smith had resigned and departed the D.A.R.T. on 30 November 2014.

On the face of it, Chair Len Roberts-Smith played politics.  Yet in his responsible and entrusted position as an agency head of the Australian Government (and so a senior public servant), he had no right to function outside the D.A.R.T. Terms of Reference by trying to personally coerce ministerial intervention of the D.A.R.T. to try to retrospectively undermine any abuse claimant’s claim for reparation payment.

Yet based upon the test of his letter to the two ministers acted in flagrant breach of his duties under the Public Service Act 1999 Part 3 Sections (13) ‘The APS Code of Conduct’ and Section (14) ‘Agency Heads and statutory office holders bound by Code of Conduct’.

This APS Code of Conduct is reproduced below for the FCA’s convenience.

Chair Roberts Smith, in his treatment of claimant Mr Knight, breached clauses (1), (3), (7), (10), (11).

The Respondent’s [Annexure MAS-3] is further revealing of the considerable steps the D.A.R.T. went to over a two-year period, as it stalled its decision about Mr Knight’s Defence multiple-abuse claim.

Materially at the time in 2014, the Victorian Government had lodged it CORRECTIONS AMENDMENT (PAROLE) BILL 2014 before the Victorian Legislature.  Unprecedently, this Bill of the Legislature was a specifically targeted punishment of Mr Knight solely to overrule the Judiciary and impose a regime of indefinite incarceration upon Mr Knight, long after he had served out his criminal sentence.

The within six months, Roberts-Smith stepped down from his agency head position as Chair of D.A.R.T. in on 30 November 2014, citing personal reasons.  The timing was well before his contractual employment term had been due to lapse.

It was reported in the media at the time:

“The decision has disappointed Attorney-General George Brandis, who was keen to see Mr Roberts Smith complete the job as chairman of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce”.

[SOURCE:  https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/roberts-smith-to-quit-abuse-taskforce/7lth4dr13 accessed 3–Mar-2024]

This undermining action placed the D.A.R.T. patently outside its Terms of Reference in its dealing with  Mr Knight’s case.   The D.A.R.T. not only failed to “deal with” Mr Knight’s claim for reparation payment, the DART acted mischievously and with targeted prejudice to this individual on grounds completely unrelated to Mr Knight’s abuse claim for reparation payment.

Further, it is argued that given the D.F.O. was in possession of this letter [submitted as its Annexure MAS-2], the D.F.O. was thus clearly well aware that its processor the D.A.R.T., had NOT “dealt with” Mr Knight’s claim, but mischievously undermined it politically.

Applicant KNIGHT’s Rebuttal #3f:    D.A.R.T.’s systemic undermining of Mr Knight

The D.A.R.T.’s Chair Roberts-Smith was immediately replaced by the Australian Government by the very next day from 1 December 2014, appointing deputy Robert Cornall AO to be the new Chair.

SOURCE:   ‘Royal commission hears of problems in Defence Abuse Response Taskforce’, Townsville Bulletin

The only records of the secret correspondence between the D.A.R.T. and Australia Government ministers that are known by the Applicant are those three provided by the Respondent in its annexures “MAS-2”, “MAS-3” and “MAS-4” to the Federal Court of Australia in this case.

In these letters “MAS-3” in fact reveals that Mr Cornall rigorously pursued the same denial of Mr Knight’s reparation payment as had his predecessor Mr Roberts-Smith, including a copy-cat approach of ultimatum to the selected Australian Government ministers.

In the Respondent’s Annexure “MAS-3”, Chair Robert Cornall in his letter of 5 March 2015 to the Minister for Justice The Hon Michael Keenan MP, (cc. Minister for Defence The Hon Kevin Andrews MP) reference is made to a second letter by the former D.A.R.T. chair and reply by the Minister for Defence dated 4 September 2014, and the then Minister for Defence (still Senator The Hon David Johnson) of his reply dated 17 November 2014.

The Respondent’s Annexure MAS-3:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.16 MB]

In his letter, the second D.A.R.T. Chair Robert Cornall refers to his predecessor’s letter at page 1.

Disturbingly this reveals that Chair Roberts-Smith’s second ultimatum letter to the two ministers again insisting on obtaining “formal direction” from these two ministers to the D.A.R.T. to rule against paying incarcerated complainants.  It reinforces the personal prejudgement Mr Roberts-Smith had against Mr Knight to deny any reparation payment to Mr Knight.  The timing was almost right up to Mr Roberts-Smith’s last day as Chair on 30 November 2014.

Chair Cornall then goes further in this matter his letter about developing a D.A.R.T policy, specifically in regard to incarcerated complainants, even though such a factor being irrelevant to precluding a claimant’s Defence abuse claim, as Chair Roberts-Smith had stated in his letter of 28 May 2014.

To the contrary, such serious physical and psychological abuse from which Mr Knight illegally endured at RMC Duntroon might well induce reactive behaviour by a claimant.  Indeed, Mr Knight is on record verifying to expert witnesses (Supreme Court of Victoria -appointed psychologists and psychiatrists) in R v Knight [1989] VR 705, verify that ‘Duntroon bastardisation’ targeting Mr Knight, gave rise to his psychotic state in reactive violent rage incident against society in general (referred to by the media as ‘The Hoddle Street Massacre’ (in Melbourne), which was committed just two weeks after Mr Knight’s forced resignation from Defence by Defence.

In this case, expert witness accounts of Mr Knight’s Defence multiple-abuse incidents are relevant to him committing Hoddle Street murders, but these crimes are not relevant to his Defence multiple-abuse claim for reparation payment.

Further, Chair Cornall in his letter of 5 March 2015 notes in pages 3, 4 and 5 his personal; view about Mr Knight.  So the D.A.R.T. was now targeting Mr Knight specifically.  Was it politically unsavoury?  Were there political influences at play?  It is expected so.  Whatever, in Mr Knight’s case the D.A.R.T. was not doing its proper job.

Chair Cornall in his letter to the then Minister for Justice, The Hon David Johnston MP (copy to Minister for Defence, The Hon Kevin Andrews MP), raises further matters concerning Mr Knight at the time that are quite unrelated to Mr Knight’s abuse claim.

This is quite different to Mr Knight’s claim for a reparation payment.  So why did this D.A.R.T.  Chair raise this unrelated matter to Mr Knights abuse claim if it was not to cast aspersions upon Mr Knight?

In all reasonableness, one could well justify Mr Knight suing the Commonwealth of Australia for the ten multiple physical assault incidents inflicted upon him during 1987 by senior cadets (his workplace superiors) whilst he was employed in training at the Royal Military College.

The Australian Government in 2012 had initiated the establishment of the D.A.R.T. (under public pressure?) following the law firm DLA Piper Review’s investigation and very public report in 2011 of many allegations of historical abuse suffered by individuals training/serving in the Australian Defence Force left ignored.

The D.A.R.T. wasn’t exactly prompt in dealing with Mr Knight’s 26 November 2013 Defence multiple-abuse claim.  It took a delayed 2 ½ years!  Why? is a key question.  Despite the D.A.R.T.’s Terms of Reference, to Mr Knight, his claim to the D.A.R.T. seemed to have had fallen on deaf ears.

By 2015, Mr Knight initiated his own civil action for compensation against the Australian Government (Defence) as was his civil right.   Yet Chair Cornall’s motive for mentioning this unrelated matter in his letter?  D.A.R.T. Claytons impartiality?

Chair Cornall in his letter to the then Minister for Justice David Johnston MP, also raises the issue of whether such a D.A.R.T. policy change be applied to complainants on parole.  Around this time in March 2014, Mr Knight was due to be eligible for parole on 8 May 2014.   So, clearly this reinforces again that the D.A.R.T.’s keenest for policy change (Terms of Reference changes) designed to deny incarcerated claimants reparation payment was purely targeted toward Mr Knight at its highest level, the chair.

The Respondent in its Annexure MAS-3, has much of Chair Cornall’s letter redacted.

This redaction is presumably for privacy reasons, else for reasons perhaps contrary to the D.F.O.’s choice of arguments against Mr Knight which the D.F.O. prefers not be made known to the Court.

Much privileged correspondence of the D.A.R.T. that the D.F.O. exclusively holds in its possession about the D.A.R.T., which may be particularly very relevant to this case yet counter to the submission narrative version that the Respondent selects to argue its case, has not been provide by the Responded to this Court.    The incarcerated Applicant is not in a position to obtain such privileged correspondence from the D.A.R.T. that relates to his claim, so making this hearing to be perceived yet another David and Goliath struggle – so again similarly unfair, and unjust.

In the interest of transparency, truth and justice, the Applicant requests this Court order the Respondent to make available to Her Honour only (not to the Applicant), a full unredacted copy of each of its submitted annexures filed in this case.

Further, it is argued that the D.A.R.T. Chair Cornall stepped in and overruled the D.A.R.T. Assessment Note of Mr Knight’s abuse claim.

Mr Cornall concludes in his letter of 15 March 2015 to the two ministers:

A “lower level of abuse”?  How callous!

Clearly, Chair Cornall never read Mr Knight’s detailed serious physical abuse incidents that he endured at RMC Duntroon as lodged with his abuse claim to the D.A.R.T.   Neither D.A.R.T. chairs Roberts-Smith nor Cornall displayed any empathy toward Mr Knight’s abuse claims.  They probably were engrossed in the biased media hate toward Mr Knight at the time as his parole had come up.

Like former D.A.R.T. Chair Roberts-Smith, Chair Cornall imposed his uninformed personal prejudice against Mr Knight – that Mr Knight’s subsequent civilian crimes outweighed Mr Knight’s eligibility to receive abuse reparation payment.  This was tantamount to a ‘judge-jury-and executioner’ mentality.

In the above “reasons” cited by Chair Cornall here, to a reasonable person there are many disturbing elements.

Mr Cornall steps well outside the D.A.R.T.’s Terms of Reference by overruling how the D.A.R.T. should “deal with” Mr Knight’s complaint.   These are not “reasons”, but rather his own personally prejudiced opinions against Mr Knight that are quite irrelevant to Mr Knights abuse claim, namely:

1. Mr Cornall’s rejection of any medical treatment or psychological counselling of Mr Knight by the D.A.R.T.  However, Mr Knight’s filed evidence verifies that he was exposed to both physical and psychological abuse whilst training at RMC Duntroon.   A key function of the D.A.R.T. was to assess and identify each Defence abuse allegation and if a claimant was deemed “eligible” and “in scope” to recommend reparation including counselling.

SOURCE:  The D.A.R.T.’s Final Report, March 2016, page 54.

Mr Cornall’s personal overruling of the D.A.R.T.’s responsibility for counselling of Mr Knight over to “prison authorities” was ignorant, flippant, and manifestly a flagrant breach of the D.A.R.T.’s entrusted charter and of its Terms and Conditions.

2. Mr Knight’s incarceration is irrelevant to his abuse claim to the D.A.R.T.

3. The date time period of Mr Knight’s abuse in Defence matters not. Actually, Mr Knight’s abuse occurred not “17 years ago” before 2015, but in fact 28 years ago before 2015, back in 1987, so Chair Cornall got his facts wrong, if at all he bothered to check the facts or read Mr Knight’s Defence multiple-abuse claim submission, which is doubted.

In fact, the DART investigated abuse allegations dating back to the 1940s, so the date of abuse is irrelevant.  [Refer to the D.A.R.T Final Report March 2016, Annexure 10]

Also, RMC Duntroon’s abuse of junior cadets is institutionally systems extending back to 1911 [Refer to Chris Clark’s documentary book on Duntroon of 1986, Ch 16

Further, Darren Moore’s documentary book on Duntroon of 2001, Ch 20 ‘Hazing’.  Mr Knight as a staff cadet is mentioned in that book pp. 153-154]

4. Mr Cornall’s statement that “In all the circumstances, I doubt Defence would be prepared to engage in a restorative engagement conference” is again his inappropriate prejudiced personal opinion that totally rejects Mr Knight eligibility “in all circumstances”. This is not just for reparation payment, but also counselling of eligible complainants, and its Restorative Engagement Conference.

Mr Cornall signs off in his letter to the two ministers with another ultimatum “their applications for a reparations payment pending your decision”, thus:

All the while, the D.A.R.T. confirms it has failed to maintain its communications with Mr Knight about his abuse claim lodged with the D.A.R.T. on 26 November 2013, more than 15 months prior.

Clearly in Mr Knight’s case, the D.A.R.T. Mr Cornall has similarly displayed a personal hateful prejudice towards Mr Knight, as with his former boss Mr Roberts-Smith.

What was the D.F.O.’s motive then for submitting these two D.A.R.T. letters to this Court?  [The Respondent’s annexures “MAS-2” and “MAS-3”].   Is it just to again try to further denigrate Mr Knight as previously done so deliberately by the D.A.R.T.?

The D.A.R.T. deliberately stalled its decision to “deal with” Mr Knight’s claim of 26 November 2013. It waited until it received its requested “recommendation” from the two ministers in their letter to D.A.R.T. dated 24 Jun 2015, extract as follows:

Extract text from The Respondent’s Annexure MAS4 – The Minister’ response that the D.A.R.T. sought

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [368.13 KB]

So, the D.A.R.T. eventually got want it insisted upon from the ministers by its two ultimatums, or then, did it?

This ministerial reply (above) to the D.A.R.T. of 24 June 2015 was NOT a directive, but simply a “view”, so at best a recommendation, but certainly not of the gravitas of being a ministerial “directive”.  There was no statutory change.

This is evident from the text in the internal ‘memo’ within the D.A.R.T. dated 19 May 2016 between the D.A.R.T. Director, Strategic Co-ordination (name redacted) up the food chain to D.A.R.T.’s more senior Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer, (formerly/currently of AGS) thus:

Of note, this internal D.A.R.T. memo of 19 May 2016 to Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer is actually signed by Kirsty Windeyer herself.

So what was going on?  Was this a misstep or a stitch up?

Kirsty Windeyer had been an employee of the D.A.R.T. and also of Respondent’s representative, the Australian Government Society (AGS) in 2013 and perhaps at the time of this letter?

This surely presents a perception of a serious conflict of interest on the part of Ms Windeyer.  It is a significant question for this Court to resolve the truth of the D.A.R.T./D.F.O. goings-on to manipulate due process.

In regards to the D.A.R.T.’s memo under thesection headed “Background”, the D.A.R.T.’s relied upon the quoted “directive” from the Minister of Defence (then incoming Senator the Hon Marine Payne) and the same Minister for Justice, the Hon Michael Keenan about denying a reparation payment to an “applicant” (claimaint) “convicted of a serious crime”.

This is a noticeable change from previously denying a reparation payment to “an incarcerated claimaint”.  Also is the specification “that a serious crime is one attracting a maximum sentence of over ten years” as coincidentally as in Mr Knight’s case.

So how did the ‘ministerial view’ that the D.A.R.T “should not” make any reparation payment to  incarcerated claimants (clearly targeting Mr Knight) manage to then escalate to the gravitas of becoming a ‘ministerial directive’ a year later?

The Respondent is silent on this significant transition between 24 June 2015 and 5 May 2016.  So, with no other correspondence nor evidence provided by the Respondent to the Court to the contrary, this significant difference suggests the D.A.R.T. chose to augment its interpretation of this wording in the ministerial reply.  So, exploiting this to suit D.A.R.T.’s own ends – to deny Mr Knight any reparation payment…‘by hook or by crook’?  It smells again of the D.A.R.T. unilaterally changing its rules to suit ulterior motives of its own as it went along, well outside the mandatory scope of its Terms of Reference.

The Applicant requests by this Court puts pertinent questions to the Respondent on this particular issue in order to ascertain the truth of what went on between the D.A.R.T. and the Australian Government ministers in the interim.

1. Why did it take a year from the “ministerial view” reply letter to the D.A.R.T. and the D.A.R.T.’s internal memo effectively issuing a ‘ministerial directive’ to deny Mr Knight reparation payment?

2. Was there any correspondence between the D.A.R.T and the Australian Government ministers concerned on this “incarcerated claimaint”/ “convicted of a serious crime” irrelevant soupçon? If so, the Court to order the Respondent supply all such to the Court.

NOTE:  Given that the Respondent (D.F.O.) has thus far been able to furnish this Court with previous letters between the D.A.R.T. and the Australian Government ministers and indeed an internal D.A.R.T. memo; this suggests the D.F.O. has exclusive possession of all D.A.R.T. records, including its correspondence with Australian Government ministers.

Such was indicated by Chair Cornall in the D.A.R.T.’s Final Report  [Exhibit “JK-10”: Defence Abuse Response Taskforce, Final Report, March 2016, ‘9.1 Post-Taskforce legacy issues’, page 53 (copy below)].

3. Of the 2,439 Defence abuse complaints received by the D.A.R.T during its tenure (2012-2016) (see extract source below), only three identified as “incarcerated claimants”. Was Mr Knight the only claimant of these three having been convicted of a serious crime attracting a maximum sentence of over ten years?

SOURCE:  The D.A.R.T.’s Final Report (March 2016), ‘Executive Summary’, page 13

4. It would seem that between the ministerial reply letter to the D.A.R.T. dated 24 June 2015 and a year later when the D.A.R.T in its 2-page letter of 20 May 2016 eventually replied back to Mr Knight about the outcome of his Defence abuse claim; that other correspondence likely was exchanged between the D.A.R.T. and the various changing ministers of the Australia Government of the day.

Else, if there was no correspondence, why did the D.A.R.T. unilaterally escalate the “ministerial view” reply letter to the D.A.R.T. in its internal memo effectively issuing a ‘ministerial directive’ to deny Mr Knight any reparation payment?  Was this escalation concocted by the D.A.R.T?

5. Given that the D.A.R.T. Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer signed the internal memo dated 19 May 2016 concerning Mr Knight’s abuse claim, during what period was Kirsty Windeyer also employed by the Respondent’s representative, Australian Government Solicitor?

In regards to the D.A.R.T.’s memo “Issue”, as previously mentioned in this Applicant’s  Rebuttal, the D.A.R.T. elected to undertake unrelated research about Mr Knight’s subsequent (resultant) criminality as a civilian, immediately following Mr Knight’s multiple-abuse at RMC Duntroon.

This unrelated research was subsequently exploited by the D.A.R.T. in its internal letter of 19 May 2016 by the D.A.R.T. Director, Strategic Co-ordination (name redacted) up the food chain to D.A.R.T.’s more senior Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer, (formerly/currently of AGS) recommending thus:

Note:  The last line contains a typographic error.  It should instead read “No factors have been identified…”

Thirdly, regarding Recommendation in which the DART Executive Director Kirsty Windeyer recommends that the D.A.R.T. determine that Mr Knight specifically be deemed “not eligible for a reparation payment”, this was contrived by one Kirsty Windeyer, thus:

By the time the D.A.R.T. got around to communicating back to Mr Knight about his abuse claim, it was in its 2-page rejection letter to him dated 26 May 2016.   A copy of this letter, obtained under Freedom of Information by Mr Knight,  is provided below for the convenience of this Court.

In the D.A.R.T.’s rejection letter to Mr Knight responding to his abuse claim for reparation payment, Kirsty Windeyer appears to be playing twin roles at the same time; one as the D.A.R.T. Executive Director; the other as a solicitor with the Australia Government Solicitor (AGS).

Kirsty Windeyer presents the perception of a conflict of interest by the D.A.R.T. in this case, since effectively rebranded by the Australian Government as D.F.O.?

Notably, the D.A.R.T.’s Assessment Note was not provided to Mr Knight by the D.A.R.T. at any time.  As previously highlighted, the first time Mr Knight received the DART Assessment Note was by his Freedom of Information request through the D.F.O. in 2023 via the Attorney-General.

Materially, the statutory duty of the D.A.R.T was still incumbent upon it to only deliver outcomes consistent with its Terms of Reference.  This did not include changing its protocol to follow political recommendations, notably as requested by two Chairs of the D.A.R.T. to minsters of the Australian Government.

All these three underhand internal correspondence machinations (and maybe there were more we still don’t know about) labelled “For Official Use Only” between DART and the two ministers concerned, were all unbeknownst to claimant Mr Knight at the time.

Unlike the Judiciary, the D.FO., like its precursor the D.A.R.T., is using/selecting these secret records it now controls to suit its own ends.  It is but another QANGO (government agency), unanswerable to the Australia public and beholden to the agendas of the politicians running the Australian Government of the day.

Applicant KNIGHT’s Rebuttal #3g:    D.F.O.’s failure to provide key documents

Mr Knight in his letter to the Respondent’s legal representative, Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) dated 9 January 2024 requests of the AGS to provide him with:

 “the relevant documents concerning the initial referral by the D.A.R.T. to the ministers in 2015”

as follows:

[Respondent’s Annexure MAS-1]

The Applicant here objects to the Court, that given the Applicant’s denial of computer access nor Internet access etcetera under his current severe incarceration at maximum security Port Phillip Prison, the Respondent has failed to supply the Applicant a printed copy of the ‘Court Book’ that the Applicant seeks.

Such denial of a court document, has denied the Applicant of fair and reasonable access and time to review the Court Book and so to fairly and reasonable prepare his submission to the FCA in this case.

This followed the then replacement D.A.R.T. Chair, Mr Robert Cornall, in his previous written correspondence with Minister for Justice The Hon Michaeal Keenan MP (dated 5 March 2015) concerning applicant Mr Knight’s incarceration.