What is the commonly accepted definition of ‘corruption‘?
“dishonest or illegal behaviour involving a person in a position of power”.
In light of the judgment of the Honourable Button J in Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman [2024] FCA 474, (at paragraph 147), Mr KNIGHT is challenging the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) of its auto-refusal to use its authority to consider his complaint to the DFO of its predecessor the Defence Abuse Reparations Taskforce (the D.A.R.T.’s) retrospective bias against him on the following bases:
PARAGRAPH 107:
I have referred , deliberately, to the concept of “investigate” and “investigation” as those words are used in the Act. That is because these reasons should not be construed as endorsing the Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman [W2.4] FCA 474 24 position taken by the Respondent in his letter of dated 21 March 2023 that he had “no authority to consider” Mr Knight’s complaint about the handling of his 2013 complaint. In my view, considering the handling of that complaint in some way (and on the assumption that it had been “dealt with” by the DART) falls within the ”function of dealing with any matter relating to complaints previously made to. and dealt with by, the [DART]” under s 14(1)(d) of the Regulations. Section 14(l )(d) does not limit how the Respondent may 1’deal with” such a matter. In his letter of 21 March 2023, the Respondent did not say that he had no function to “investigate” a complaint about the handling of Mr Knight’s 2013 complaint. Rather, as noted, his response was that he had “no authority to consider” that matter at all. I do not consider that he had no authority, as stated.
Honourable Button J
QUOTING MR KNIGHT:
A. I was denied a reparations payment (for the Defence abuse he suffered at Duntroon
B. I was denied any other outcome
C. I was not consulted by the DART
This is Mr Knight’s letter to the DFO dated 23 May 2024:
(From:)
Mr Julian Knight
Port Phillip Prison
PO Box 376
LAVERTON VIC 3028
23 May 2024
(To:)
Mr David Fintan
Defence Force Ombudsman
GPO Box 442
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Your Ref: D-2020-100030 23 May 2024
Email to: defenceforce.ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au
Dear Mr Fintan,
In light of the judgment of the Honourable Button J in Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman [2024] FCA 474, I wish to lodge a fresh complaint pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) and s.14(1)(d) of the Ombudsman Regulations 2017 (Cth), regarding the way my complaint to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) was dealt with by the DART.
It is my understanding from reading paragraph 107 of Her Honour’s judgment (see above) that, contrary to the advice previously given to me, the DFO does have the authority to consider a complaint relating to how the DART dealt with a complaint. I would appreciate it if you would advise me, first, whether you agree with this reading of Her Honour’s judgment and, second, if you do agree, what action you are able to take in response to such a complaint.
I made a complaint to the DART in 2013, which included an application for a reparation payment. My complaint concerned bastardization I was subjected to as a junior staff cadet at the Royal Military College (RMC), Duntroon, in 1987 (including physical assaults). My complaints were found to be within scope, plausible and accompanied by mismanagement by Defence. In spite of this assessment, I was denied a reparation payment and I did not receive any other outcome.
During the prosecution of the proceeding Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman in the Federal Court of Australia (Case No VID 364 of 2023) it was revealed that (a) the relevant Ministers’ direction
that I not receive a reparation payment was instigated by the DART, and (b) the DART considered other outcomes but dismissed all of them without any consultation with me.
The specific aspects of my complaint about how the DART dealt with my complaint are as follows:
(a) I was denied a reparation payment
When the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme ( OARS) was established in 2012 its Guidelines contained a section (5.8.l(a)) dealing with reparation payments made to ‘a person who is a prisoner’. I submitted my application for a reparation payment on 26 November 2013. On 28 May 2014, the then Chair of the DART wrote an unsolicited letter to the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General regarding myself and two other incarcerated claimants. In spite of the fact that the DARS Guidelines had already made allowance for reparation payments to prisoners, the Chair wrote that our applications raised ‘unusual issues which may not previously have been contemplated by Government.’ The Chair asked ‘whether the Taskforce should deal with these complaints in the ordinary way, or refuse to consider or act upon them, on grounds of public interest.’
At this point, I note that the Chair raised this question in the absence of any public outcry about reparation payments being made to prisoners.
I also note that at the time the Chair raised this question one of the two other claimants mentioned in his letter had been released and received a reparation payment, and at least one other reparation payment had been made to a claimant who had previously been incarcerated.
I further note that a similar Commonwealth Government reparation scheme, the one administered by the National Redress Scheme for people who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse, makes reparation payments to claimants in gaol and this fact has been reported in the media (without a resulting public outcry).
The relevant Ministers subsequently issued a directive that no reparation payments should be made to anyone convicted of a serious crime. By the time this directive was issued in 2016 the cohort of affected claimants was only myself and the only other still incarcerated claimant. My belief is that no attempt was made to determine how many of the claimants who had already received a reparation payment had been convicted of a serious crime. Myself and the other incarcerated claimant were amongst the last, if not the last, of claimants to have our applications determined. Neither application was referred to the independent Reparation Payments Assessor.
I am not concerned with the legality of the Ministers’ directive. Aside from finding that an action or inaction was contrary to law, I understand that you may alternatively find that it was unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, unreasonable (including unreasonable delay, procedural deficiencies, flawed processes), based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact, or otherwise, in all the circumstances, wrong. I suggest that it is open to you to find that all of these complaints applied to the manner in which my complaint was dealt with by the DART.
“…I understand that you may alternatively find that it was unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, unreasonable (including unreasonable delay, procedural deficiencies, flawed processes), based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact, or otherwise, in all the circumstances, wrong.”
~ Mr Julian Knight
(b) I was denied any other outcome
In a letter to the Minister for Justice dated 5 March 2015, the Chair of the DART outlined his views regarding the other outcomes that I could have been offered. The Chair wrote the following:
Even if his complaint establishes a plauslble case of abuse In Defence, Iam of the view that the other outcomes are likely to be Inappropriate for the following reasons:
• As a long term prisoner, prison authorities are responsible for Mr Knight’s required medical treatment (including counselling)
• Allegations of bastardisation perpetrated 17 years ago by an unknown number of senior cadets would not give rise to consideration of a criminal investigation or referral to the Chief of the Defence Force for consideration of dlsclpllnary or administrative sanction,and
• In all the circumstances,Idoubt Defence would be prepared to engage In s restorative engagement conference.
The DART, contrary to its own terms of reference, never consulted with me about any of these possible outcomes.
In relation to counselling,the prison authorities are not responsible for counselling in relation to historical abuse. Nor are they trained to deal specifically with abuse suffered in the military. Even if they were, I would not feel comfortable discussing my experiences with counsellors employed by the Victorian prison authorities. This is still an outcome I would like to access.
In relation to a criminal investigation, I self-reported the instances of physical assault to ACT Police. In the event, despite a statement by me, they decided not to lay any charges.
In relation to a referral to the CDF for disciplinary or administrative sanction, the relevant
Administrative and/or Disciplinary Sanction Recommendation Report by the Chair of the DART
dated 21 July 2015 was produced during the prosecution of the proceeding Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman. I agree with the recommendation of the report; my complaint is that Iwas never consulted about this outcome or informed of it having been made.
In relation to the restorative engagement conference, I would be prepared to engage in such a conference.
(c) I was not consulted by the DART
As indicated above, aside from the reparation payment, the DART never consulted with me about any of the other possible outcomes. This was contrary to the express provision for ‘close consultation’ in both the DART’s original and amended terms of reference.
In conclusion, I seek the following currently available responses:
(1) A referral for counselling through Open Arms – Veterans and Families Counselling;
(2) Participation in the DFO Restorative Engagement Program; &
(3) A recommendation for an ex-gratia payment in lieu of a reparation payment.
Please note that my original complaint to the DART was found to be within scope, plausible and accompanied by mismanagement by Defence. Mine is not a case of a complainant whose complaints were found to be implausible and who repeatedly ·asks that his complaint be reassessed. My complaints were substantiated and, in spite of this, I was denied any outcome .
During the prosecution of the proceeding Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman, it also came to light that the decision taken by the RMC Board of Studies that I be asked to “Show cause” (why my appointment as a staff cadet should not be terminated) was based on two false premises. Please advise me whether you are able to consider a complaint regarding unfair dismissal (or am I required to pursue such a claim in the Federal Court?)
If you believe that I have not provided sufficient information to substantiate my complaint, please let me know so that I may provide any necessary additional information.
If you do not have access to any of the documents that were submitted as evidence in my Federal Court proceeding,and which I refer to in this letter, please let me know and I will furnish you with copies.
Your consideration of my complaint would be much appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
JULIAN KNIGHT
Email: PPPGovernmentFunctions@au.g4s.com
Further…
Mr Julian Knight
Port Phillip Prison
PO Box 376
LAVERTON VIC 3028
23 May 2024
Mr David Fintan
Defence Force Ombudsman GPO Box 442
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Your Ref: D-2020-100030 23 May 2024
Email to: lnformation.Access@ombudsman.gov.au
Re: DART complaint
Dear Mr Fintan,
I hereby apply for full access under the DFO administrative access scheme to all documents held by the DFO that relate to my complaint to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) in 2013 (Submission No 906049), and my simultaneous Application for Reparation Payment Form made to the DART pursuant to the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme (DARS) (Ref No: 2013/7518).
Please advise me whether I am required to seek access to any of these documents via the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
Yours sincerely,
JULIAN KNIGHT
Email: PPPGovernmentFunctions[at]au.g4s.com
