‘Diplomat Dan’ fails in Supreme Court bid to restrain serving Tasmanian magistrate

A Tasmanian man who accused a serving magistrate of arranging gang members to choke and kill him has failed to convince the Supreme Court to grant a restraint order. What the court heard:

Daniel Victor Gandini has failed in his bid for a restraining order against Magistrate Simon Brown.

A Tasmanian man who accused a serving magistrate of arranging gang members to choke and kill him has failed in a Supreme Court bid for a restraining order against the judicial officer.

The applicant, a 44-year-old known as Diplomat Dan, brought the action following his appearance before Magistrate Simon Brown last December, during which Mr Brown charged the applicant with contempt for wilful misbehaviour in court.

Diplomat Dan subsequently launched legal action against Mr Brown, attempting to restrain him from entering the Magistrates Court or the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court of Tasmania, Hobart. Picture: Chris Kidd

Mr Brown denied the allegations against him, and the case was heard by Magistrate Edwards on 4 March this year.

Counsel for Mr Brown argued that the magistrate was immune from litigation on account of his functions as a magistrate, and that the application was scandalous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Diplomat Dan challenged the view that he had been in contempt of court, and also claimed Mr Brown had arranged for him to be viciously attacked.

Magistrate Edwards dismissed the application, based on a lack of proof the allegations against Mr Brown had been made out, and said she was not satisfied the conditions to impose a restraint order had been established.

Diplomat Dan took his fight to the Supreme Court, where Acting Justice Shane Marshall found Mr Brown was indeed immune from lawsuits filed in respect of actions taken by him as a magistrate.

“That is what he was doing on 18 December 2023 when he charged the applicant with contempt,” Acting Justice Marshall said.

“Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application for review because it concerns a matter for which the magistrate had complete immunity in the proceeding before Magistrate Edwards.”

“The order of the court is … the notice of review filed on 22 March 2024 is dismissed.”