State of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors

The High Court of Australia considered appeals arising from proceedings concerning allegations of corruption and misconduct against Mr Stradford, a former judge of the District Court of Queensland. The proceedings involved the State of Queensland, the Commonwealth of Australia, and His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta, who had been appointed to conduct an inquiry into Mr Stradford's conduct. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of certain investigative powers exercised by Judge Vasta and the subsequent actions taken based on those powers.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the investigative powers conferred upon Judge Vasta by the Queensland *Integrity and Anti-Corruption Act 2011* (Qld) and the *Public Sector Ethics Act 1994* (Qld) were constitutionally valid, particularly in light of Chapter III of the *Commonwealth Constitution*, and whether the impugned decisions made by Judge Vasta were affected by an apprehended bias. The Court also had to determine whether the Commonwealth was entitled to seek declarations and other relief in relation to the conduct of the inquiry.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the powers conferred on Judge Vasta were not invalid by reason of Chapter III of the *Commonwealth Constitution*. The Court reasoned that the functions of the inquiry were administrative and investigative, rather than judicial, and did not involve the exercise of federal judicial power. Furthermore, the Court found no apprehended bias on the part of Judge Vasta, concluding that a reasonable apprehension of bias had not been established. The Court also determined that the Commonwealth had standing to seek the relief it claimed.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the investigative powers and the decisions made by Judge Vasta.