Catch the Fire
case - Application for a Judicial Review
Catch the Fire Ministries, Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Danny Nalliah have
lodged an application (or writ) at the Supreme Court of Victoria asking for
a judicial review of the decision handed down by Judge Michael
Higgins in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on December 17,
2004.
The legal team prepared documents detailing concerns about procedures of the
hearing, including errors made by the judge, and made the application against
all parties - the Islamic Council of Victoria, Judge Higgins and VCAT.
[Many people have asked if an 'appeal' will be made against the decision. A
formal 'appeal' can only be made on errors in 'law' - not against errors in fact
or procedural matters. This application is the only way of 'appealing
against the decision' at this time.]
A summons has been served on all parties, requiring them to attend a
Directions hearing at the Supreme Court on Thursday 21 April
2005.
This will be a brief hearing to deal with arrangements for
the lodging of affidavits and setting a date for a hearing.
The following article appeared in the Age in Melbourne last week - it gives
more details of the situation.
Hate case judge 'showed irredeemable
bias'
The Age, Barney Zwartz, April 11,
2005
Full article: "The judge in Victoria's first religious hatred case
showed "irredeemable bias" and "idiosyncratic and erroneous opinions", lawyers
for a Christian group claim in documents filed with the Supreme Court.Catch the
Fire, the Christian group judged to have vilified Muslims in breach of the
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, has applied to the Supreme Court to
dismiss the ruling. In December Judge Michael Higgins found that Catch the Fire
and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot vilified Muslims at a seminar in 2002,
in a newsletter and in a website article. Judge Higgins found in the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal that Mr Scot made fun of Muslims in a way that
was "hostile, demeaning and derogatory", and that his conduct was not for a
genuinely religious purpose or in the public interest (which the act makes
exempt). The application, which claims the act is unconstitutional, lists 16
grounds, including the jurisdiction of the judge, errors in the act and errors
by Judge Higgins. Lawyers for Catch the Fire and the two pastors have asked the
court to find the act invalid or to quash the decision or hear the case again.
The application for a judicial review is not an appeal, but if successful
would have the same effect. It claims VCAT lacked jurisdiction because Judge
Higgins said he could not rule on whether the act was constitutional, a federal
matter and an important part of the defence.
It also lists 106 claimed errors
by the judge, ranging from "irredeemable bias" against Mr Scot and denial of
natural justice to misunderstanding the nature of religious conviction. It says
Judge Higgins imposed "an irrelevant religious orthodoxy of (his) own
creation".
The application says Judge Higgins indicated during the hearing
that he would not make findings about Islamic doctrine but abandoned that
course, using his "own unventilated views" and "idiosyncratic and erroneous
opinions" to judge the credit of the pastors.
The Islamic Council of Victoria
held its annual meeting yesterday. New secretary Neil Aykan had been in the post
two hours when he spoke to The Age. He said he was not yet on top of
the vilification case. "I just hope common sense prevails," he said. "We will
act in the best interests of Muslims and the Muslim community." The case has
sparked international interest. It was an important factor in the British
Government dropping plans for similar legislation last week.”
Click here
for the original article. Author: Jenny Stokes | Modified: 21 April 2005 |
