Australian judge who dismissed Covid vaccine lawsuit hid that she had been paid by Pfizer

Helen Rofe QC directly represented Pfizer in at least five protracted trials before deciding the Covid-19 vaccine case, finding in Pfizer’s favour and dismissing the lawsuit that threatened to stop the Big Pharma giant from distributing the vaccine in Australia.
However, Rofe’s decision allowed Pfizer and Moderna to continue rolling out the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines in Australia, which became one of the most vaccinated nations in the world.
As detailed in a detailed article by eminent law professors Augusto Zimmermann and Gabriël Moens, in ‘Re Dr Julian Fidge v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor’, an injunction was sought in the Federal Court against Pfizer and Moderna on the basis that they had failed to apply for the necessary licences to handle genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Australia under the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act).

Dr. Fidge sought to present evidence showing that the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna objectively meet the legal definitions of GMOs under section 10 of the Act.

If this was the case, the court would then have to consider the question of whether Pfizer and Moderna had knowingly contravened the GT Act.

Sky News report: If the court found so, Pfizer and Moderna would be prevented from further use of their mRNA COVID vaccines in Australia.

The judge who heard the case, Helen Rofe, found in favour of Pfizer and Moderna, dismissing Dr Fidge’s case on the grounds that it had no prospect of success as he was not an “aggrieved person” under section 147 of the GT Act.

This is where the case gets interesting.

To avoid any reasonable claim of bias, the judges will have to consider whether it should be disclosed whether they have previously acted for any of the parties who have acted for them.

However, the law firm representing Dr. Fidge argues that at no time, either before or during the hearing of the case, did Judge Rofe disclose that, while practicing as a paralegal, she was apparently both directly and indirectly representing Pfizer in at least five separate and protracted cases.

As Zimmermann and Moens confirm, the rules on judicial bias require that when a judge has had prior contact with one or more parties to the case, he or she is required to consider disclosing all details and invite the parties to make submissions on whether that judge should recuse himself or herself.

While her honor's work as counsel for Pfizer is a matter of public record, it is alleged that no such disclosure was made to Dr. Fidge's legal team in this case.

TRENDING: Japan: 'Billions of Dying Vaxxed Have Dementia - Perpetrators Must Be Punished'

The complaint, by PJ O'Brien & Associates, against Justice Rofe has been filed not only with the Federal Court but also with all members and senators of Parliament in accordance with section 72(ii) of the Commonwealth Constitution, which allows judges to be removed from office for proven misconduct or incompetence.

Regardless of the merits of the case, as stated in the complaint, "a reasonable observer could and does conclude that by failing to disclose Justice Rofe's prior and substantial relationship with Pfizer, and close working and family ties (with the pharmaceutical industry), this created and is creating a perception that her Honour intended to conceal her prior relationship with Pfizer and apparently from the claimant in the case (Dr Fidge)".

The complaint is supported in Parliament by Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent MP.

This case is not so much about COVID as it is about the principle of legal integrity.