FCA Case VID364/2023
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 business 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 2023 by Respondent]
1. Introduction to this Case:
Julian Knight’s current legal battle in 2023 is with the Commonwealth Ombudsman – and specifically with the (Australian) Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO). This is an internal branch of the (Australian) Commonwealth Ombudsman (DFO) department of the Australian Federal Government.
The current Defence Force Ombudsman is/was Mr Michael Manthorpe, but governments come and go, they change organisational structures continually, so employees likewise come and go. Bureaucracies float in the wind – here one minute and then sent out to pasture the next from incoming political preferences – Blue, Red, Green, Pink, Teal, Black…
It seems that every year of so the incumbent government of the day appoints a new government ombudsman like Canberra’s revolving door to Parliament House. However, the common denominator overseeing the current portfolio is another politician again usurping Judge, Jury and Executioner. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman reported to the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus.
Legal Case Title:
Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman (D.F.O.)
(Ref ID: VID364 | Year 2023 )
Date Lodged to Court by Mr Knight:
Tuesday, 20th April 2023
Scheduled Hearing Start Date:
Wednesday, 29th November 2023 [rescheduled to 4th March 2024 – see letter below]
Hearing Location:
Federal Court of Australia (Victoria District)
Address: 305 William Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Opening Hours: 0830 – 1630 hrs
Tel: 1300 720 980
2. Case Procedural Timeline
- Court decision is currently pending
19 April 2024:
- The Federal Court’s imposed deadline for final submissions. This has come and gone.
13 Mar 2024:
- Federal Court orders Mr Knight to submit his final submissions to the Federal Court by a 19 April 2024 deadline
4 Mar 2024:
- Hearing Date: Mr Knight verbally presents his case claim to the Federal Court (in person) before Her Honour Justice Catherine Button
- The Respondent’s legal counsels attend Court including a King’s Counsel barrister
16 Feb 2024:
- The Respondent (the D.F.O.) files its submission to the Federal Court – containing some 40 paragraphs over 11 pages. This document was prepared by a junior solicitor, and contains repeated baseless and pedantic waffle
- This late minute submission unfairly gives the Applicant (held in maximum security prison incarceration) extremely insufficient time to be able to rebut to the Court before the hearing date
- This is the second occasion that the Respondent in this case has not had its submission filing prepared on time. On 2nd November 2023 (below) it notified the Court just the day before the original schedule hearing date to request an extension of time.
- Is the judge known to the Respondent’s King’s Counsel by any chance? If so, can Mr Knight expect an fair and impartial hearing of his case?
2 Nov 2023:
- The DFO’s solicitor (AGS) as Respondent, writes to the Court informing Her Honour that the Respondent “will not be in a position to file the submissions by tomorrow“, presumably the Court’s 3 Nov 2023 deadline and requesting a “Case Management Hearing”.
Loading...
- The Court acquiesces to the Respondent’s Australian Government Solicitor’s late minute postponement and re-schedules the Hearing Start Date to Monday 4th March 2024.
- In Mr Knight’s view the original hearing ought to have taken place as originally set by the Federal Court, the overpaid AGS, (taxpayer-funded), ready or not.
Reload document 
Open in new tab 5 Aug 2023:
- Case set to be heard in the Federal Court of Australia (Victoria District) in Melbourne, Wednesday 29 November 2023.
- The Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) to legally represent the D.F.O.
20 Apr 2023:
- Mr Knight (as a prisoner) files Form 59 being his Affidavit to the Federal Court of Australia (District Registry: Victoria)
- This includes four annexures as documentary evidence – Exhibits “JK-1”, “JK-2”, “JK-3” and “JK-4”.
- Legal Case Title: Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman (Ref ID: VID364 | Year 2023 )
- Mr Knight is the ‘Applicant’ against the Defence Force Ombudsman (the D.F.O.) being the ‘Respondent’
- Mr Knight is to self-represent.
3. Court Notice of Filing by Mr Knight (as ‘Applicant’)
Loading...
4. Case Background
This an outline of the legal appeal lodged by Mr Knight in the Federal Court of Australia (Victoria district in Melbourne) on 20th April 2023 against the (Australian) Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO). The DFO is a subsidiary of the Australian Government’s ‘Commonwealth Ombudsman‘ department).
Mr Knight is appealing against his claim that the DFO unlawfully on 21st March 2023 rejected Mr Knight’s claim lodged of 16th March 2023, being for Mr Knight’s rightful financial compensation by the DFO as reparation for his abuse/bastardisation that he suffered from Army senior staff cadets whilst he was enlisted in the Australia Regular Army and formally training as a junior Army officer staff cadet at the Royal Military College (RMC-D) at Duntroon in Canberra between January and June in 1987.
In ‘law’, the lapse of time is irrelevant to achieving ‘justice’.
Legal Documents in Chronological Order
Those ‘internal’ D.A.R.T. documents were obtained almost a decade later by Mr Knight under Freedom of Information law, to support his legal challenges against the failures of due process by both the D.A.R.T. and then the D.F.O. Both agencies were politically-appointed QANGOS [Quasi Autonomous Non Government Organisations] having no legal judicial jurisdiction nor accountability, besides to their political masters. An apt analogy is that such QANGOS are appointed mercenaries to usurp the constitutional authority of the Judiciary, that Constitutionally illegitimately usurp the Judiciary to suit the political agenda of the government of the day, usually on a contemporaneous and temporary basis.
The Gillard Labor Government’s conceived D.A.R.T. which functioned between 2012 and 2016. The subsequent Turnbull Liberal Government wound up the D.A.R.T. in 2016.
(A) 26th November 2013: Mr Knight’s Reparation Application under the (Australian Government’s) Defence Abuse Response Scheme (DARS):
Loading...
(B) 13th January 2015 (some 2 years later): DART’s internal ‘Assessment Note’ of Mr Knight’s abuse reparation claim (obtained by Mr Knight via F.O.I.)
Loading...
(C) 20th May 2016: DART’s internal letter advising DART Executive Director to reject Mr Knight’s claim against ADFs’ RMC Duntroon abuse
Loading...
(D) 20th May 2016: DART’s Rejection letter to Mr Knight’s claim about ADF RMC Duntroon abuse
Loading...
(E) 16th March 2023: Mr Knight’s fresh complaint claim letter of Duntroon abuse submitted to the DFO
Loading...
(F) 21st March 2023: DFO’s flat rejection Mr Knight’s claim letter for abuse reparation
Loading...
5. Case (& the D.A.R.T.) Analysis
This case is not new brought by Mr Knight. Rather it is an ongoing appeal for Mr Knight’s rightful claim for reparation compensation since applying to DART back in 2013.
Indeed, this case stems from the Australian Government’s Defence Department’s (ADF) abuse of him along with its many enlisted personnel in this case back in 1987 whilst he served in Army officer training on the ADF payroll at the Royal Military College (RMC) at Duntroon in Canberra.
Mr Knight’s appeal process only pervades due to ongoing immoral political interference and compromised political appointments at the D.A.R.T. and subsequently the D.F.O., which continue to do the wrong thing by this victim of Australian Defence Force abuse. Mr Knight is one of more the 2500 so identified victims who have reported various personal Defence abuse whilst being members of the ADF.
Justice delayed is justice denied
Following legal firm DLA Piper‘s damming review (from April 2011) into many allegations of systematic abuse in Australian Defence Force dating back to 1951, notably at RMC Duntroon; DLA Piper’s report (Oct 2011) was finally made public by the ADF in July 2012.
The DLA Piper review had heard from over 700 victims of abuse in Defence, with a review concluding that all but a handful of allegations were plausible. It’s lead author of both the investigation and the report, Dr. Gary Rumble, recommended to the then Gillard Government‘s Minister of Defence Stephen Smith MP, a Royal Commission into such institutionalised/systemic abuse in the ADF.
Australia’s then Minister of Defence Stephen Smith subsequently instigated what became nicknamed in the Press as the ‘Rumble Review‘. However as an outcome of that, the Gillard Labor Government decided to reject a royal commission recommendation.
The Gillard Labor Government instead established a half-hearted ‘QUANGO’, the ingloriously entitled Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART), a temporary government organisation charged to assess and compensate ADF personnel (past and present) on a case-by-case basis, who chose to formally come to DART to formally claim to have suffered physical or sexual abuse, harassment or bullying at the hands of the ADF before 11 April 2011.
So, what about afterwards and ongoing ADF abuse of its personnel?
This Taskforce (DART) worked from 26 November 2012 until 30 June 2016. However from the outset, the Gillard Government standing committee’s Terms of Reference for DART excluded resolving individual disputes or settle complaints about alleged abuse in Defence, rather only offering financial ‘reparation‘ to ‘eligible’ victims. The term ‘compensation‘ was avoided.
The D.A.R.T. considered 2,439 complaints and found 1,751 to be within its scope and plausible (likely true and so eligible for financial reparation). Reparations financial compensation would range in value from $5000 to a maximum of $50,000 per complainant according to the nature and severity of the particular abuse suffered in each case.
Notably, the 8-page D.A.R.T. internal ‘Assessment Note’ relating to Mr Knight’s application and allegations (obtained later by Mr Knight under Freedom of Information law), recognised that Mr Knights allegations of abuse whilst serving in the ADF, were indeed plausible.
Mr Knight’s detailed evidence submitted to DART on 26 November 2013 included his application for reparations and his ‘Personal Account‘ (of his Duntroon Bastardisation experiences in 1987) of some 95 pages plus 13 attached documents. This was under the watch of DART’s original Chair (Nov-2012 to Nov-2014) Major General (ret’d) Len Roberts-Smith QC.
Yet the D.A.R.T. chose never to respond to Mr Knight until its letter of 20th May 2016, some two and a half years later. That letter to Mr Knight rejected his application. Roberts-Smith’s successor to the role of Chair was his deputy Robert Cornall. Yet, DART’s rejection letter to Mr Knight came after the D.A.R.T. had written its final report to government dated March 2016, after which D.A.R.T. was formally wound up in June 2016. Following on subsequently, the Defence Force Ombudsman has been administering the Reparation Scheme since 1 December 2016.
This delay is unacceptable and inexcusable and reflects the gross incompetence and disingenuousness of the D.A.R.T., particularly the biased Chairs, from the proper and impartial handling of the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme.
Army Major General (retd) Len Roberts-Smith overseeing Knight’s bastardisation claims against Duntroon, was a conflict of interest
Mr Knight’s Application for Reparation to DART on 26 November 2013 alleged and detailed (1). Physical Abuse and (2) Workplace Bullying and Harassment (aka bastardisation) that Mt Knight suffered as an Army junior officer cadet whilst training at RMC Duntroon between Jan-Jun 1987.
Major General (ret’d) Len Roberts-Smith QC. was the overseeing original Chair at the time of Mr Knights application (Nov-2012 to Nov-2014).
So, Roberts-Smith was a retired Army officer in charge of overseeing the DART review of Mr Knight’s case of bastardisation at the Army officer training college Duntroon. Was this not a conflict of interest, whether actual or perceived in the minds of the general public and Mr Knight? The D.A.R.T. assessment process in Mr Knight’s case was therefore biased, failed due process, denied natural justice and a victim of abuse bringing his claim to an authority charged specifically to listen to investigate and make reparations to Defence abuse victims such as Mr Knight.
The D.A.R.T. failed to adhere with its Terms of Reference and behaved unethically. It’s no wonder Mr Knight’s case was down-placed, whitewashed and rejected. Mr Knight has been denied natural justice in this matter. It was a flawed and morally bankrupted system, which was then handed over the the D.F.O. in late 2016, which simple perpetuated the unethical practices.
Neither the D.A.R.T. nor its successor the D.F.O., engaged outside independent expert witnesses such as qualified and experienced psychiatrists and psychologists with capacity to professionally investigate and evaluate the scale of abuse that a claimant had reported. The D.A.R.T. staff engaged were unqualified to do so. May be they had a D.A.R.T. board and an incredibly shrinking budget by the time they got around to rejecting Mr Knight claim of 26th May 2016, some 21/2 years after his application lodgement on 26th November 2013.
A number of the senior cadet abusers at RMC Duntroon whom Mr Knight identified in his evidence had graduated from the adjacent and recently established Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) in 1985. ADFA itself had specifically been found by DLA Pipers review to be a main culprit of reported institutional abuse by personnel within the ADF.
The bastardisation culture of the Old Duntroon (since 1911) had simply been allowed to relocate from the old Duntroon (4 years training) to ADFA in 1985 and then brought forward by Army cadets to the ‘new’ Duntroon (18 months training) from 1986 and perpetuate intake after intake.
We cite the ‘ADFA 24‘ female sexual assault complainants. [‘ADFA 24’ refers to about two dozen women largely unresolved cases of rape and other sexual abuse at this Canberra military college in the mid to late 1990s]. Mr Knight’s ‘Personal Account’ submitted to DART reveals that as a junior cadet at Duntroon in 1987 he was one of the targeted victims of this institutionalised ‘Old Duntroon‘ Bastardisation in-barracks culture practised by senior cadets.
The D.A.R.T. initially supported DLA Piper’s Royal Commission recommendation, but under political interference, Cornall withdrew that recommendation.
In 2014, the DART’s initial Chair, Len Roberts-Smith QC, concluded that “the only way of ensuring confidence that the allegations of very serious abuse at ADFA can be thoroughly and completely investigated — and appropriately dealt with — is by way of a royal commission”. This had been DLA Pipers lead investigator and report author’s recommendation in 2011.
However by November 2014 Len Roberts-Smith had resigned for “personal reasons” politically?
His successor, his deputy Robert Cornall, subsequently in September 2016 reversed that recommendation in a public report stating:
“..this Taskforce no longer supports the recommendation to establish a royal commission into ADFA”, after seeking advice from former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick. The commissioner told the Taskforce that, while she believed doing nothing is not an option, her discussions with the women she had consulted who were sexually assaulted at ADFA want action to be taken but do not believe a royal commission is necessarily the best solution.”
The Taskforce proposed a joint Australian Crime Commission (ACC)-ACT Policing investigation instead of a royal commission, which it said “would attract less public attention and therefore may be more acceptable to the women who suffered the abuse”. But it was found the proposal did “not fit with the ACC’s legislated functions“.
So, the Australian Government’s response to the DLA Piper investigation into institutional abuse in the ADF (2012-2016) became a whitewash and basically token ‘shut up money‘ to about half the victims. The ‘ADFA 24’ women received 23 reparation payments, totalling $1.1 million. The DART payments to ‘approved victims’ ranged from $5,000 to $50,000.
DART’s reparation payments assessor, Robyn Kruk, who determined the amounts paid out to victims stated:
“Complainants were most focused on the payment they received for Defence mismanagement ($5,000) even though it was only a minor part of most reparation payments.”
It was simply ‘shut up money’.
The ultimate cost of reparation payments to 1,723 complainants amounted to $66.6 million and a further $147 million was spent on DART’s operations. The governments ‘abuse response’ cost overall $214 million of taxpayers’ money. Yet the DART had heard from some 4000 victims, more than double those who received the paltry $500 ‘shut up money’. Hundreds of victims of Defence abuse were left without redress while there are many serving members of the ADF – including very senior Officers – who have been accused of abuse – including 22 accused of rape.
The institutional abuse across the Australian Defence Force was not criminally investigated, nor prosecuted, nor addressed, but ignored ans so allowed to perpetuate.
DART in June 2016 was wound up, with its function being subsumed into the offices of the Commonwealth Ombudsman from December 2016. But unlike DART, the DFO won’t be able to make payments for compensation, only make recommendations, and will lack the resources and focus on Defence abuse that the D.A.R.T. had.
Political convenience again.
Senate Enquiries into the D.A.R.T.
Independent Senator Xenophon instigated two Senate Enquiries into Defence abuse, and stated:
“This final D.A.R.T. report is a whitewash, and the fact that the Government sat on it before releasing it for five months is a disgrace. Sweeping this level of abuse under the carpet won’t make it go away. Only a Royal Commission can get to the truth of what occurred, and deal with any systemic issues. It could also address the fact that there are senior Officers serving in our Defence Force today who were either accused of abuse, or stood by and did nothing – the very people that are meant to be the agents of cultural change in Defence.”
“Defence Abuse Response Taskforce has not done its job, royal commission needed.”
~ Senator Nick Xenophon
“A parliamentary report on the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce has recommended further action needs to be taken.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon says he has real concerns that the body set up to deal with abuse in the Australian Defence Force has not done its job.
Speaking after the release of a Senate committee report into the process to support victims of defence abuse – the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce, or DART – Senator Xenophon said only a royal commission could adequately deal with the allegations of systemic abuse in defence that go back 50 years.
“Ultimately, Australia needs a royal commission into defence abuse because these allegations have been going on now for 50 years,” he said.
There are a number of men who are serving in our Defence forces who are rapists … yet they have not been brought to account.
“Hundreds of men and women, boys and girls, have been abused while serving their country and it appears the systemic issues are still there and have not been addressed.”
The DART was tasked with looking at abuse generally but also specifically at the cases of the abuse of young boys at HMAS Leeuwin in the 1960s and 70s and the more recent cases at the Australian Defence Force Academy, known as the ADFA 24, in Canberra in the 1990s.
Senator Xenophon said that although DART had referred a number of cases to the police and to the Chief of Defence for further investigation and action, the ADFA 24 cases had still not been adequately dealt with.
He said he was concerned a number of alleged rapists may still be serving in defence.
“There are a number of men who are serving in our defence forces who are rapists, who may have gone on to higher rank, who may be in leadership positions in the defence forces, yet they have not been brought to account,” Senator Xenophon said. “That surely is a cancer in our defence forces.”
Nick Xenophon criticises Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART).
The parliamentary report on the DART left open the option of a royal commission, but said additional legislative amendments may be required to allow private evidence.
The parliamentary committee also criticised the communications strategy of the DART and acknowledged that many people were not aware of the process or of the fact they had to lodge their complaints before the cut-off date of May 2013.
It recommended the process be reopened and the deadline for new complaints extended until June next year.
The report also recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) be instructed to consult and report back on the legal and practical barriers there were to victims of abuse succeeding in establishing the facts necessary to access entitlements to DVA benefits.
Some who found they were determined by the taskforce to have “plausible” claims subsequently found those claims were still not recognised by DVA.”
SOURCE: ‘Defence Abuse Response Taskforce has not done its job, royal commission needed: Xenophon’ by defence correspondent Michael Brissenden, 31st Oct 2014,
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/defence-abuse-body-has-not-done-its-job-xenophon/5857358
Senator Kakoschke-Moore, who prior to being elected to the Senate has worked extensively on the issue, including advocating for victims of abuse, said:
“The fact that hundreds of people who have service in Defence have made allegations of abuse and can no longer have their claims processed because of an arbitrary cut-off date of 31st May 2013 is unacceptable. There needs to be a permanent DART to deal with the serious issues of the past, and to ensure that it does not happen again in the future.”
The Turnbull Government’s Ministers Payne and Keenan colluded with the D.A.R.T. Chairs to deny Mr Knight’s reparation claim
Under the Australian Liberal-National Government of Malcolm Turnbull MP (2015-2018) the Minister for Defence was Senator the Hon Marise Payne MP, and the Minister for Justice was the Hon Michael Keenan MP.
Just two weeks before DART wrote its rejection letter to Mr Knight, on 5 May 2016, the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, and the Minister for Justice, the Hon Michael Keenan MP, directed DART that where an applicant for a reparation payment under the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme has been convicted of a serious crime (one attracting a maximum sentence of over 10 years), that no reparation payment should be made to them.
Robert Cornall was then the second Chair of DART who had previously served as Deputy to original DART Chair, former Major General (retd) Len Roberts-Smith.
The internal letter of 19th May 2016 (copy above requesting DART Executive Director Kirtsy Windeyer agree to the recommendation NOT to pay Mr Knight. Presumably, the redacted name on that letter of DART’s Director, Strategic Coordination was either Rudi Lammers, else Robyn Kruk who was then acting as DART’s Reparation Payments Assessor. That internal DART letter was later obtained by Mr Knight under Freedom of Information law.
Is it any wonder why Mr Knight appealed against the DART’s rejection of his claim for DART reparations, and then DFO’s auto-rejection of same without any review?
6. Initial Evidence filed by Mr Knight with the Court against D.F.O. [Case VID364/2023]
- Exhibit “JK-1”: Australian Army Officer Staff Cadet Julian Knight’s Personal Account (of Duntroon Bastardisation experiences in 1987) to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) on 26 November 2013. [95 pages]
- Exhibit “JK-2”: Mr Julian Knight’s Application for Reparation Payment for suffering multiple instances of ‘Physical Abuse’ and ‘Workplace Harassment and Bullying’ by senior staff cadets whilst undergoing Army officer training at the Royal Military College at Duntroon, lodged under the Defence Abuse Response Scheme (‘DARS‘) – as distinct from ‘DART‘ – of 26 November 2013 and DART Assessment Note of 20 May 2016.
- Exhibit “JK-3”: Mr Julian Knight’s Complaint of Historical Abuse against Duntroon dated 16 March 2023 [121 pages, plus 36 attachments over 176 pages].
- Exhibit “JK-4”: Mr Julian Knight’s fresh Complaint about Duntroon Bastardisation to the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) on 16 March 2023 which Mr Knight was subjected to whilst a junior staff cadet at Duntroon during January – May 1987. [NOTE: DFO replaced DART from September 2016]. Also, DFO’s dismissive letter of response to Mr Knight dated 21 March 2023.
7. Subsequent Evidence filed by the Respondent (D.F.O.) to the Federal Court
The legal counsel for the Respondent (the D.F.O.), the Australian Government Solicitor, led by a King’s Counsel barrister, delayed its submissions to the Federal Court to Friday 16th February 2024, well aware that the set hearing date was 4th March 2024, just 12 business days later.
Mr Knight then did not receive the Respondent’s submissions in Port Phillip Prison until Monday 26th February. This delay thus restricted Mr Knight’s ability to review the Respondent’s 40 paragraph submission in a reasonable timeframe before the Federal Court hearing date, so just 5 business days. Once again the Australia Government’s D.F.O. engaged in unfair and underhand tactics deliberately to thwart Mr Knight’s right to have a fair hearing.
- Notice of Filing of Outline of Submissions (by the Respondent) acknowledged by the Federal Court of Australia accepted Monday 16th February 2024 (1 page);
- Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, comprising: (11 pages comprising 40 paragraphs of arguments against Mr Knight’s two complains against the D.F.O. (see AGS link below)
- Respondent’s Affidavit Annexure ‘MAS-1’: Copy of Mr Knight’s letter to Ms Scott, 9 January 24 asking for the missing/delayed Court Book whereabouts due to him (1 page);
- Respondent’s Affidavit Annexure ‘MAS-2’: Copy of Mr Knight’s emailed letter of 9th January 2024 to the Respondent’s legal counsel, the Australian Government Solicitor, requesting copies of relevant correspondence between the previous D.A.R.T. and Australian Government ministers at the time that was held by the D.F.O. bring critical to Mr Knight’s case
- Respondent’s Affidavit Annexure ‘MAS-3’:
- Respondent’s Affidavit Annexure ‘MAS-4’:
- Notice of Filing of Affidavit (by the Respondent) acknowledged by the Federal Court of Australia accepted 16th February 2024 (1 page);
- Respondent’s solicitor’s Affidavit (3 pages);
Knight v DFO in the Federal Court 2023 – the D.F.O.’s Submission 16-Feb-2024
8. Underhand Tactics deployed by the Australia Government toward Mr Knight…yet again
Such underhand tactics deployed by the Australian Government specifically against Mr Knight can be traced back to 1987. This was when the Duntroon’s leadership brass under RMC Commandant Major General Murray Blake and the Australian Defence Force more broadly initiated the equivalent of ‘Operating Cover Arse‘, so conspiring to offer is former staff cadet, then arrested prisoner, Mr Knight a plea bargain during R v Knight criminal hearing associated with the Hoddle Street Shooting Spree.
Duntroon’s otherwise labelled ‘Operation Scott Free Plea Bargain‘, came ahead ahead of Mr Knight’s sentencing was for him during the Supreme Court hearing process to not in any way shape or form, implicate his state of mind on Hoddle Street on Duntroon. That being he was subject to the institutional and brutal Duntroon Bastardisation treatment Mr Knight suffered as a junior officer staff cadet over the immediate six months (Jan-Jul 1987) prior to his psychotic state of mind at the time of his Hoddle Street Shooting Spree on 9th August 1987.
In return, Duntroon (the ADF) undertook that it would then not challenge nor appeal the sentencing judge’s incarceration order, irrespective of the length of the non-parole sentencing period decided.
Mr Knight consented at the time and so stayed silent in the Supreme Court of Victoria throughout on any reference to implicate Duntroon Bastardisation as a contributory factor to his Hoddle Street Shooting Spree.
However, it would transpire that the Australian Government would renege on its promise to Mr Knight. It later waged a political campaign behind the scenes with the Victorian state government to overturn the judicial decision, such that ahead of Mr Knight being eligible for parole in 2014, the Victorian Parliament decided to unconstitutionally usurp the judiciary to enact a Knight-targeted hate law to deny him parole in PC perpetuity.
9. Details of D.F.O.’s filed Submissions
- This 15 page filed submission is accessible as a PDF document for download and print – see link below embedded document.
Loading...
DFO’s filed Affidavit Annexures
- This 17 page filed submission is accessible as a PDF document for download and print – see link below embedded document.
Loading...
10. Knight’s Rebuttals of the D.F.O.’s Submissions
During the course of the Court’s hearing process, Mr Knight elected to submit an additional five exhibits as further evidence to the Federal Court rebutting the D.F.O.’s submitted arguments, including supplying a transcript of the Supreme Court case KNIGHT vs Commonwealth of Australia [2017] ACTSC 3 which specified the 10 incidents of Defence abuse he suffered whilst at Duntroon, immediately before Hoddle Street.
These additional exhibits follow on from the originally submitted five exhibits by Mr Knight (See Section 6 above).
Those Exhibits were as follows, and they are reproduced on this website via the following hyperlinks:
[Exhibit “JK-6”] KNIGHT V DFO FCA Applicant Submission Rebuttal (Part 1 of 3)
[Exhibit “JK-7”] KNIGHT V DFO FCA Applicant Submission Rebuttal (Part 2 of 3)
[Exhibit “JK-8”] KNIGHT V DFO FCA Applicant Submission Rebuttal (Part 3 of 3)
[Exhibit “JK-9”] KNIGHT vs Commonwealth of Australia [2017] ACTSC 3
[Exhibit “JK-10”] DART Final Report (31 Mar 2016)
11. Federal Court Judgment by Justice Catherine Gail Button 9th May 2024
- Regrettably for Applicant Mr Knight, presiding Justice Button on 9th May 2024 ordered that Mr Knight’s amended originating application be dissmissed.
The Court Order:
Loading...
These are the reasons for the Court’s decision:
Loading...
Justice Catherine Gail Button was appointed to the Federal Court on 16 January 2023. Justice Button graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws in 1997 from the University of Melbourne. Justice Button also studied as a Rhodes Scholar from 2000 to 2003, graduating from the University of Oxford with a Bachelor of Civil Law in 2000, a Master of Philosophy in Law in 2001 and a Doctor of Philosophy in 2003. [SOURCE: Federal Court of Australia – Victoria District]
12. Comments from ‘The Knighthood’
- We note in the respondent’s filed documents that the DFO’s solicitor (Australian Government Solicitor, AGS) Ms Madisen Scott (Senior Lawyer – below photo) is a firm based in Perth, WA; however documents show that Ms Scott works out of the ACT office of AGS.
- We note that the timing of the respondent’s solicitor’ submission were not lodged with the Court until as late as 16 February 2024, just 12 business days ahead of the case hearing. Further, Mr Knight, being so incarcerated in Port Phillip Prison and subject to extreme communication restrictions with would have likely experienced further delays in receiving such submissions by the respondent’s solicitor, AGS. This is consistent in Mr Knight’s unfair treatment by the DFO (by the DART previously, and by the ADF previously) in denying Mr Knight due and natural justice; notably Mr Knight being denied a reasonable review time of the respondent’s submission ahead of the case hearing on 4th March 2024.
- Mr Knight lodged his filing for this appeal case against the DFO in the Federal Court of Australia back on 20th April 2023, now nearly a year ago. The original hearing start date for this case was set for 29th November 2023. Why has the DFO’s solicitor taken 11 months to lodge its submission, last week filing at the last minute?
- Mr Knight has also requested from DFO’s solicitor a hard copy of the missing/delayed Court Book whereabouts per his letter to Ms Scott, 9 January 2024, and much earlier, yet without any reply.
- This collectively smells of yet another deliberate ploy by Defence, the Federal Government and its quangos – DART, DFO and the Commonwealth Ombudsman – to frustrate the judicial system as it has done since Day 1 back in 1987 with its ADF bastardisation, obfuscation of culpability, and token subsequent quangos, and injustice;
- This excessive delay in the hearing demands the Court further postpone the hearing to properly allow Mr Knight a few months to review the respondent’s solicitor’s submission and its case arguments.
- We intend to scrutinise Justice Button’s 119 numbered paragraph reason for her judgment to find button holes and give her a run for her money. Let our school of hard knocks challenge the philosophising Oxford doctor.
13. Relevant Articles
2023: Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman VID364 (for DART 2016 injustice)
2023: Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman [Federal Court] Case VID364
2013: Army Officer Staff Cadet Julian Knight’s submission to DART for Duntroon Bastardisation