Court Judgments - Real or Forged

Is this decision by a Judicial Registrar real or a forgery?

You be the judge

Different types and indications of Forged Documents

Here are two examples of decisions by Judicial Registrars of the Federal Court of Australia. 

Decision 1

This first example looks authentic and there is no reason to suspect it is not real.

Decision of Judicial Registrar M Buchanan - decision dated 18/06/2024 

It is signed and has the name of the Judicial Registrar who made the decision typed beneath the signature: 

 

 Decision 2

The second example has two obvious differences that make you say “hmmmmm”.

Decision by an unidentified Registrar - decision dated 8/07/2024

 

1. An image of a signature has been pasted into the salutation. 
2. The name of the National Duty Registrar is not shown.

To request a review of any decision, you need to know the name of the decision-maker. 

It is unusual to not give the name of the decision-maker. This is one more piece of evidence to suspect the decision may not be real.

One place to look for the name of the decision-maker is in the metadata of the file: 

 

The author named in the pdf file has an entry on LinkedIn. 

The information on LinkedIn does not help to confirm the judgment is real. On the contrary, it has more pieces of evidence to suspect the decision may not be real: 

Janika Fernando
Legal Case Manager, Federal Court of Australia | Penultimate Law student at the University of Sydney

About
I am currently a fourth-year law student at the University of Sydney, holding a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in English, and working as a Legal Case Manager at the Federal Court of Australia.

With a strong background in federal law and litigation procedures, I am eager to explore new realms such as family law, migration law, and dispute resolution in corporate law and intellectual property. I am open-minded and ambitious, with extensive experience in publications, having authored and edited multiple short stories and articles in law and arts journals.

Experience
Federal Court of Australia
Part-time · 2 yrs 2 mos
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia · On-site

Legal Case Manager
Sep 2023 - Present · 11 mos
- Assistant to Judicial Registrar Hammerton Cole

Court Officer
Jun 2022 - Sep 2023 · 1 yr 4 mos
- Provided comprehensive support services to judges, their associates, legal practitioners and the public, managing courtroom operations and leveraging advanced technology for seamless proceedings.
- Demonstrated leadership in enhancing procedural efficiency through the implementation of digital litigation practices and online hearing streaming, while delivering exceptional client service and promoting team collaboration.

Skills
Judgment Writing [emphasis added]
Legal Case Manager at Federal Court of Australia

Another way to find the name of a Judicial Registrar who wrote the decision is to ask...

In reply to a request, an email from the ACT Registry passes on the name of the person they have been told is the author of the document: 

Email from ACT Registry providing a name of the author - 9 July 2024

With this information - a name for the author - we might be closer to confirming the judgement is real. 

The person named in the email also has a LinkedIn entry, and they have their own email address at the Federal Court of Australia:

Tom Morgan
Judicial Registrar at Federal Court of Australia

Experience
Solicitor
Federal Court of Australia

Deputy District Registrar
Federal Court of Australia

Judicial Registrar
Federal Court of Australia
Feb 2002 - Present · 22 yrs 6 mos
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

And so, the next step is to write to the person who is nominated as being the author, and ask him to confirm that he is, in fact, the author: 

Email and letter to Judicial Registrar asking him to confirm he wrote the decision - dated 10 July 2024

Alas, this attempt to confirm that the decision is real, and not a forgery back-fired. The answer was quite unexpected, and from an unexpected source. The Judicial Register to whom the request was sent DID NOT REPLY.

Real or FORGERY?

The reply to the email that was addressed to Judicial Registrar Tom Morgan was answered by none other than... Janika Fernando. This was the second time in two days this name was associated with the judgment. An unexpected coincidence: 

Email from Janika Fernando replying to email addressed to Tom Morgan - dated 10 July 2024

So, without confirmation from a possible author of a real decision, and the answer by a person who may be the author of a forged document... where to look next?

This content of the decision can be checked, to look for answers to two questions:

1. Does this decision look like it was written by a Judicial Registrar with over 20 years experience at the Federal Court of Australia? or 
2. Does the decision look like it was written by a university undergraduate?

To answer these questions it helps to understand why Judicial Registrars make these judgements, and what limits apply to how they make them. 

Why Judicial Registrars may decide to refuse to accept documents for filing

The Federal Court of Australia receives enormous volumes of documents that are lodged to begin new proceeding, or to be added to the documents that are part of existing proceedings.

The majority of these documents are prepared by solicitors and will quickly pass through two "quality assurance" steps and be accepted for filing. 

The first quality assurance step is to make sure that the documents don't have any obvious mistakes, such as an unsigned form, a missing page, or a document that is necessary has been omitted. 

After passing this first "quality assurance" step, some documents that are in some way unusual are referred to a Judicial Registrar for a second "quality assurance" step. An example of an application that a Judicial Registrar would refuse to accept for filing would be one that asks the Court for a decision it cannot make. 

Consider an application by a child requesting a Court order that Santa deliver presents to his house on 14 December because his family will be away on holidays from 15 December.  The application may be properly laid out, printed on the correct forms and has been signed. This means it can pass the first "quality assurance" step. It will be rejected at the second "quality assurance" step because the Court does not have the power to order Santa to change his delivery timetable. 

There are limits on the scope of what a Judicial Registrar can take into account in deciding whether to refuse to accept documents for filing. For instance, it may seem to a Judicial Registrar that an application has a small chance of success, but that cannot be taken into account as this stage.

The scope of what Judicial Registrars can consider in making a judgment on whether to refuse to accept documents for filing is in rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules: 

2.26  Refusal to accept document for filing—abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious documents.
A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious:
(a)    on the face of the document; or
(b)    by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document.

The parts of the rule about "the face of the documents" and "by reference to any documents ...with the document" is explained in "reasons for judgments" when judges have reviewed Judicial Registrars' decisions to refuse to accept some documents for filing. For instance Justice Jackson in a judgment Frigger v Trott [2021] FCA 18 wrote, at paragraph 14: 

In r 2.26(b), the reference to documents 'already filed' is a reference to documents filed in the same proceeding, and not to documents already filed in different proceedings: SZVCP at [28]. If a registrar forms the state of satisfaction after taking into account documents filed in different proceedings, he or she will have taken an irrelevant consideration into account. That will mean that the decision is an improper exercise of power under s 5(1)(e) and s 5(2)(a) of the ADJR Act: SZVCP at [43]; Reaper v Luxton [2017] FCA 949 at [33] (O'Callaghan J).

The author of the real or fake judgment says they took into account documents filed in different proceedings and took into account a document written by another Judicial Registrar about those documents: 

I also refer to the Refuse to File letter issued by Registrar Buckingham dated 18 June 2024
for a similar application that you presented on 16 June 2024.
...
The grounds set out in the application are identical or substantially similar to an application presented by you on 16 June 2024...

This is a mistake that a Judicial Registrar with over twenty years experience would NOT make. A Judicial Registrar might sometimes look at other documents in making a decision, but they WOULD NOT WRITE in their decision that they had done it. This is a mistake a university undergraduate could be expected to make. 

The real or forged decision contains another mistake that an experienced Judicial Registrar would not make. 

The author wrote: 

Judicial Registrar Buckingham refused to accept [other documents in a different proceeding] on a number of grounds including that the application:
- fails to state the provision under which relief is claimed;
- as a matter of form or and substance seeks to appeal the decision of Justice Wigney in circumstances where the only avenue for appeal is an application for leave to appeal; …
…
The reasons and authorities relied on by Judicial Registrar Buckingham in the letter of 18 June 2024 apply equally to this latest application you wish to file.

These statements are simply mistaken. These are mistakes an experienced Judicial Registrar would NOT make.

The documents that the author refused to allow to be filed say:

1. The Court has the power to grant the relief requested. They reference the decision given by the Federal Court of Australia in 2023 when it granted the same relief the Commissioner of Taxation requested. Justice Perry identified this in the judgment Commissioner of Taxation v Rawson Finances Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 617 at paragraph 57.
   
2. An application for leave to appeal is neither the only nor appropriate avenue. It should be in the original jurisdiction Court. This is the same path that the Commissioner of Taxation used in the application that culminated in the above-mentioned Federal Court of Australia decision on 2023, explained by Justice Perry in that judgment at paragraph 62.

These are mistakes a university undergraduate could be expected to make.

Conclusion

It's a FORGERY.