‘Not above the law’: Federal Court under senate spotlight

Explosive details regarding the secretive appointments of unqualified senior Federal Court employees have been uncovered, as a former Supreme Court justice slams the court for its covert behaviours and insufficient transparency.

Federal Court of Australia.

New details regarding secretive appointments of unqualified senior Federal Court employees have been uncovered ahead of Senate estimates this week, as an ex-­Supreme Court judge lashed the court for its covert behaviour and lack of transparency.

Earlier reports stated two Federal Court registrars, a man and a woman, were given jobs ­despite neither fulfilling the requirement of having been admitted to the Supreme Court or High Court at the time they were employed. The prerequisite of being admitted to practice applies to all Federal Court registrars, who earn six-figure salaries, as the position wields judicial powers, including the ability to preside over hearings.

The Australian can now reveal the male registrar had a close working relationship with a member of the hiring committee and now Federal Circuit and Family Court chief executive David Pringle. Greens senator David Shoebridge is expected to grill the Federal Court on the details of the registrars’ appointments at Senate estimates on Thursday afternoon.

The revelations follow an investigation into employment of Federal Court employees conducted by the Australian Public Service Commission in 2020. It scrutinised the employment of 10 registrars, including the two who were found to be unqualified at the time they were employed.

Undertaken by APSC acting assistant commissioner Kate McMullan, it found the Federal Court breached the Public Service Act when the female registrar was promoted to her position.

Sia Lagos Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar Federal Court of Australia.

“I have found on the balance of probabilities that (the female registrar) did not hold an essential qualification for the position and that no reasonable efforts were made throughout the selection process to determine whether she was eligible to be admitted to practice,” Ms McMullan wrote in an email to Federal Court chief executive Sia Lagos.

Ms McMullan found that although the unqualified male registrar did not hold the essential requirement of being admitted to the Supreme Court, there was a “clear pathway” for him to become qualified after being employed, so concluded there was no wrongdoing in his appointment.

She did not make any adverse findings in relation to the eight other registrars. However, The Australian has become aware the male registrar had a close working relationship with then-deputy principal judicial registrar Mr Pringle, who was on the hiring committee with national operations director Andrea Jarratt.

Mr Pringle was listed as one of his employment references.

The Australian understands Mr Pringle and Ms Jarratt were aware the male registrar was not qualified for the position, and the hiring committee appointed him over dozens of candidates who had practised as lawyers and been admitted to the Supreme Court.

While Ms McMullan found there was no wrongdoing in the man’s appointment, questions have been raised about whether Mr Pringle should have recused himself from the decision.

Former Supreme Court justice and Centre for Public Integrity chair Anthony Whealy condemned the Federal Court for its lack of transparency and urged the court to offer a “clear explanation” for why the male registrar was employed.

A Federal Court spokesperson said the matters “were the subject of a confidential complaint handling process by the Australian Public Service Commission and it would not be appropriate to make further comment”.

Mr Pringle said the recruitment processes for the registrars were “guided by the HR department of the Federal Court – and I followed those processes”.