Evidence shows there is some type of scam running in the federal judiciary whereby asylum seekers and refugees are denied natural justice. One Federal judge in Sydney dismissed 252 out of 254 migration cases that came before him in the first six months of this year.
It involves Judge Alexander “Sandy” Street from the Street legal dynasty and Chief Judge John Pascoe of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
“In his time on the Federal Circuit Court, Judge Street has heard an astonishing number of cases.”
“Between January and June this year, he delivered rulings in 286 cases. The other eight judges who sit on the Federal Circuit Court in Sydney delivered 357 cases combined.” (Click here to read more)
“The success rate of migration applicants, largely asylum seekers, in Judge Street’s court was 0.79 per cent, the documents filed in the Full Federal Court claim — whereas other judges found for the appellant in about 10 to 12 per cent of cases.” (Click here to read more)
There is obviously something badly wrong and it is not accidental. It is deliberate and criminal.
Summary dismissal
In many cases Judge Street has been dismissing cases without even giving litigants a hearing which is a denial of natural justice. The reason judge Street’s conduct has come to the attention of the media is that a litigant crunched the numbers and used it in an appeal against Street’s judgment. There have now been a number of Justice Street’s judgments overturned and some currently on appeal.
In one case “lawyers for the Immigration Minister had cautioned against the summary dismissal of the Tamil man’s case, stressing the duty of the Minister to put evidence before the court.”
“The man’s immigration file had not yet been obtained. But the judge did not accept the Minister’s counsel’s entreaties, summarily dismissing the case with costs.”
“The Full Federal Court took a dim view of the judge’s approach when it ruled the case should go back before a different judge to be re-heard in the Federal Circuit Court.” (Click here to read more)
So why is Judge Alexander Street acting in such a clear and blatantly corrupt manner on such a large-scale?
How the scam possibly works
From what I can make of it the scam probably works like this.
Chief Judge John Pascoe makes sure almost all immigration cases are allocated to Judge Alexander Street who has financial troubles and is up for a bribe. Judge Street does the hatchet job on the cases. The Federal Immigration Department who defend the cases start using the same lawyers and barristers as they keep winning cases. The lawyers and barristers who get paid millions of dollars of taxpayers money from the Immigration Department give kickbacks to Judge Street and Chief Judge John Pascoe and possibly others.
Government officials who would also be suspicious of what is happening are either involved or turn a blind eye. The issue has been raised with Federal Attorney-General George Brandis but he has so far ignored the issue and based on his history will continue to ignore it.
Chief Judge John Pascoe
John Pascoe is a major league crook and is up to his neck in corruption at the Federal Circuit Court. He was also involved in fraud, theft, price-fixing and succumbing to blackmail when he was the CEO of George Weston Foods (Click here and here to read)
So running a scam with litigants at the Federal Circuit Court is very much in John Pascoe’s skill set.
Judge Alexander “Sandy” Street
Judge Alexander Street is a new judge at the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and has taken immigration laws into his own hands and denied natural justice for possibly 100’s of asylum seekers and refugees. In another recent judgment Judge Street said a blind man had no right to take his guide dog on a plane.
Judge Street comes from a legal dynasty.
“Alexander Whistler Street SC is part of an endless line of lawyers. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were all chief justices of NSW. His sister Sylvia is a federal judge and his other sister, Sarah, is a solicitor turned head-hunter with Carmichael Fisher. His son, Charles, is studying law and is indentured to Smuts McKenzie and his niece Isabella is a UTS student and para-legal at Gadens.”
“His brother-in-law, Arthur Emmett, is a judge of the Federal Court while Sandy Street’s nephew, James Emmett, is a prospering junior on 12 Wentworth. So many lawyers from one clan is scarcely enough.” (Click here to read more)
Alexander Street was only appointed as a judge in December 2014 and started in January 2015.
Sandy Street caught Stealing from his mother-in-law
In June 2014 prior to being appointed a judge Sandy Street was taken to court by his former mother-in-law who sued him for $836,989.39 plus damages and costs. (Click here to read more) In July 2014 the mother-in-law had a win and “the court made a garnishee order directing all his income to his mother-in-law, Helen McDonald, in repayment of a $540,729.92 debt he owes her.”
And then in September 2014 the court “ordered the prominent silk to pay significant contributions to his ex-wife’s rented Watsons Bay apartment – and $2000 a month towards her leased Porsche.” (Click here to read more)
In September 2014 Sandy Street also had a $230,000 Tax Office debt which he quite likely still has or at least part of it.
The relevance of Street’s financial troubles is that he would be a prime candidate for taking bribes which is about the only thing that would explain his conduct as a judge.
Alexander Street and his former wife Sally
Street has only been a judge 9 months and in his first 6 months he did enough damage that most if not all migration litigants would not want him. But immigration litigants are not the only people Street is denying justice.
Full Federal Court overturns Judge Alexander ‘Sandy’ Street ruling in airline guide dog case
In another recent case Alexander Street denied justice to a blind man.
“David Mulligan — who has cerebral palsy, severe mobility restrictions and is hearing and sight-impaired — launched a claim against Virgin Australia earlier this year, challenging the airline’s refusal to let him travel with his guide dog.”
“After hearing the case, Judge Street ruled in favour of Virgin Australia, ruling that carrying Mr Mulligan’s dog Willow would have “imposed an unjustifiable hardship on Virgin Australia””
The judgment was overturned on appeal.
“The Full Federal Court this week overturned Judge Street’s ruling that Virgin Australia had the right to refuse to board Mr Mulligan’s dog and ordered the airline pay $10,000 compensation.” (Click here to read more)
So does Judge Street really think a blind person has no right to take his guide dog on a plane? If he does he is the only one in Australia. Once again it looks like Judge Street is getting a kickback of some sort. Or at the very least doing a friend a favour with a dodgy judgment. So Judge Street does not just deny natural justice to litigants in migration cases, he also denies handicapped people natural justice. I suspect if there is a dollar to be made Judge Street will deny anyone justice.
George Brandis – Why did he appoint Street in the first place – Chief Judge John Pascoe
Given Alexander Street’s history, which was all over the media last year, why did Federal Attorney-General George Brandis appoint him as a judge in December 2014? And what will George Brandis do now given Judge Street’s corrupt conduct as a judge?
And what action will George Brandis take against Chief Judge John Pascoe for corruptly allocating all the cases to Judge Street?
Prima facie case of widespread corruption in the Judiciary
If you add the conduct of Chief Judge John Pascoe and Judge Street with the recent reports that the Mafia bribed NSW judges $2.2 million (Click here to read) then that alone is a powerful prima facie case of widespread corruption in the judiciary.
Then there is plenty more to add like Kerry Stokes bribing NSW judges and ICAC Commissioner Megan Latham covering up the judicial corruption.
Hopefully a Royal Commission into the judiciary is not far away as it is long overdue. In less than 10 months as a judge the corrupt conduct of Alexander Street has done more than most to justify a Royal Commission.
Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.
This website is independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)
You can also support this site by buying a t-shirt or coffee mug at my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)
Thank you for your support.
This is what happens when lawyers and Barristers take blood oaths ,its sadly ironic that the people who are supposed to uphold the law ,are the ones who break it most . Id like to build a new jail just for traitors,then give all police and lawyers a lie detector test ,then build another jail because they would all fail , I don’t consent to ongoing fraud by these disgraceful so called lawyers who are supposed to uphold the law.
Yep….”by oath” they are corrupt…
And therer’s there’s the highest law man in the land, that sterling national example of all that is right and proper…. George Bigot Brandis!!!
I believe you are criticising Judge Street without producing evidence to support your claim. Have you examined the facts and evidence of each case?. I suspect most, if not all, the respondents are part of the 50,000 odd thousand people arriving illegally by boat when Rudd, Gillard, Rudd government’s opened our borders. I suspect that his decisions are correct. They are people seeking to remain in the welfare state. You should not forget that the majority of the judiciary are of the left and one is not surprised by their decisions.
His decisions are being overturned on appeal with scathing judgments by the appeal judges. And what about the blind person where he denied them justice? And why is he getting all the immigration cases? And how has he handed down 286 judgements compared to the other nine judges handing down 357 judgments is the same time period? And why do applicants only win .79% of the time when the cases are in front of him yet when in front of other judges they win 10% to 12% of the time. You say the “majority of the judiciary are of the left”. Where’s your evidence for this? He was appointed by George Brandis. You might want to read the post again.
I note two appeals were allowed. How many were made and has any been disallowed?. If so, how many?. I also note that the respondents were appealing against decisions made by a Review Tribunal who obviously decided the respondents were not genuine refugees. The tribunal would have had all the facts before them and I would respectfully suggest that members of most tribunals carry out their duties in a conscientious manner. It is not unusual for Appeal Judges to disagree with a previous decisions. If appeals were not allowed, it would be pointless for anyone to appeal. Correct me if I am wrong. The lawyers appearing for the respondents are paid by the government and the respondent’s pay nothing. Why would they not appeal, they have nothing to lose?. Some of us have been around for many years. Like you, we also examine the various Judge’s background, who appointed them, the manner in the way they conduct their courts and the actual wording of their judgements. In the case of the Virgin incident, it would be helpful to know the full facts of the incident and any response by Virgin management.
What about responding to the rest: “And how has he handed down 286 judgements compared to the other nine judges handing down 357 judgments is the same time period? And why do applicants only win .79% of the time when the cases are in front of him yet when in front of other judges they win 10% to 12% of the time. You say the “majority of the judiciary are of the left”. Where’s your evidence for this?”
And here is the full court’s judgment in the guide dog case http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2015/130.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=David%20Mulligan%202015
It certainly behoves the alarmist to produce evidence the matters coming before this respected member of the Judiciary did not warrant dismissal before making
observation intended to caste aspersion bordering on defamatory, once published
PA.
Charles, I think most of them did not appeal because of costs awarded if appeal fails.
I agree with everything the article said, with one extra point: asylum seekers arriving here by boat are NOT illegal.
You have a poor grasp of law; It is NOT illegal to seek and request asylum.
Where there is smoke there is fire. I am alarmed over the appointment in the first place – particularly in light of history. Then again I have seen appointments in WA that raise the eyebrows.
I am finally learning to post some sort of website about my Federal Court experiences:
http://www.7crookedjudges.com.au
There may be some great and trustworthy judges in the Federal Court where I had my experience of litigation. I just haven’t met them yet.
1.. Why on earth would they want to come here in the first place. From “Man overboard” filth to how they turn them back..to be sent to prison indefinitely.. Its a no brainier…. going from one dictatorship to another…
2. “WHAT JUSTICE”? And isn’t it Odd that not one Lawyer Barrister QC is taking these so called ‘Judges” etc to task….
3.What DOES Brandis believe an “Oath” actually is? what Oath did he actually swear upon?
4. there lays the dictatorship = ‘do as I say not a I do’.
Conclusion; Dismiss the lot……Start all over again. Start ridding the legal system of corruption and drugs along with the police etc and Put this Country back the way it was intended.
Were all 286 judgements individual judgements?
No trial- no judgement.
No Trial , No Judgement , No Justice , No basis in Law .
Not a surprise the federal courts as corrupt as hell and delivers political agenda over social
Policy or good
Don’t you think it’s time everyone stopped the judicial political corruption?
Time to work together
Omg they did that to a handicap person. I would have to say that this time they have gone to far.
Here is a Brilliant Speech recently posted of Andrew Wilkie MP Tasmania tis I believe is very relevant to this topic ,he mentions the Boat people ,and the justice system ,it is a must listen in my humble opinion , if only we had more like him .
As much as I think multiculturalism is a failure , I don’t like the fact that they the Refugees are held in indefinite custody while some so called court decides their fate .
Agreed Bob….why do they keep coming when this Island is probably as bad if not worse than their own….Even the Poms claim it “Unsafe” now… Why come here to be locked up indefinitely! it beats me…and they do know they will be locked up.. NOW THAT IS THE UNFAIRNESS… Jail without trial… No court in Australia has any respect these days….well unless your name has insurance or Mining written into it somewhere or…. you get the picture.. Tassy is no exception..
GIves you a rough idea then of just how horrific the conditions must be where they have escaped from
Obviously someone within the Federal Court set up is allocating the hearings to be conducted by him. If he wasn’t under pressure to hear so many migration matters, then he could give each applicant “procedural fairness”. He has had only two decisions overturned on appeal and that was on the grounds of not giving the applicant “procedural fairness”. I don’t know if that means that their cases will now be heard before a different Judge. If so, I can’t wait to hear the outcome of these based on the evidence.
The other odd two hundred cases Justice Street has heard and delivered judgments in haven’t been appealed as yet – he is obviously considering most cases on the merits of evidence.
Many of the applicants no doubt have been knocked back in the relevant Appeals Tribunals so they are off to the Federal Court to try their luck there with the help of refugee/migration law firms hoping for a win, with the law firm being awarded costs. It’s about losing out on legal costs that has noses out of joint so now the law firms go for bias claim. Why doesn’t someone do an analysis on how many untenable migration/refugee cases are put before the Federal Court in this money making business and taking up valuable Court time.
Here is a link to the hearings that have come before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal this year. So many people in the migration/refugee section try it on to stay in Australia. The cases make interesting reading. Many of the applicants aren’t satisfied with the Tribunal member’s decision so it is off to the Federal Court with the help of a “friendly” lawyer.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2015/
Here are the links to the decisions made by the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal up to 30 June 2015. These two Tribunals have now merged to be the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
migration – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2015/
refugee – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/RRTA/2015/