S UTTON L AWYERS

HUMAN RIGHTS § CIVIL RIGHTS § CORRUPTION § MEDIA

D EFA M AT I O N § P R O F E S S I O N A L N E G L I G E N C E L AW
1 S T F L O O R 1 4 1 O S B O R N E S T R E E T S O U T H YA R R A V I C T O R I A 3 1 4 1
TELEPHONE: +613 9279 3932 FA C S I M I L E : + 6 1 3 9 2 7 9 3 9 5 5

Thursday 6 August 2009 *** URGENT COMMUNICATION

Victorian Legal Aid Office

350 Queen Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000

By Hand Delivery

Dear Sir/Madam

REQUEST FOR LEGAL AID GRANT - VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS 9263 AND 10222 OF
2008
Until 2 months ago law firm acted for Mr Harold James Johnson in respect of legal proceedings in the Victorian
Supreme Court being No. 9263 and 10222 of 2008 in which Mr Johnson was defendant and plaintiff by
counterclaim. The proceedings are presently before Associate Justice Daly in the Masters Court of the Victorian
Supreme Court, and before the Court of Appeal (appeal against preliminary orders made by Associate Justice
Daly, Associate Justice Evans and Justice Hartley Hansen). A separate strand of the proceedings before
Associate Justice Evans in the Masters Court, involving Mr Johnson as original defendant and ANZ Bank
subsidiary Trust Company Fiduciary Services Limited have, according to our instructions from Mr Johnson, been
settled out of Court.

In addition, Mr Johnson has we are instructed voluntarily withdrawn (whilst maintaining their legitimacy)
counterclaims against the Attorney-General (for failure to investigate whistleblower complaints) and the Legal
Services Commissioner (for breach of statutory duties to investigate misconduct complaints against Australian
legal practitioners). Mr Johnson obtained a favourable judgement from Mr Justice Stephen Kaye on 25
February 2009 confirming the legitimacy of his legal claims against the Legal Services Commissioner and, in
deed, the dereliction of the Legal Services Commissioner for not conducting those investigations. Mr Johnson
is in the process of obtaining legal costs (on the usual solicitor-litigant basis) against the Legal Services
Commissioner.

As the above summaries demonstrate, there is an overwhelming public interest in Mr Johnson’s counterclaims
proceeding and being tried by way of adversarial proceedings where Mr Johnson and the defendants (by
counterclaim) are equally represented. The obstacle is that whilst Mr Johnson is ‘fighting for life and liberty’
(having been defrauded of all of his earthly wealth by the defendants by counterclaim), the 4 lawyer defendants
by counterclaim are receiving unlimited ‘blue ribbon’ lawyers legal aid funding - 4 city law firms, one each, and 4
city barristers, again one each. As Mr Johnson wryly notes, since the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee
(seemingly in breach of its own statutory human rights responsibilities under the Charter of Human Rights and
Responsiblities Act and under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, let alone its own statutory constitution
under the Legal Practice Act) has engaged separate city law firms and separate city barristers, that each of
them has a different kind and different quantum of liability and different contributions to liability (including,
probably, cross-claims and cross-liabilities and defences between them). One of the law firm defendant’s
counsel has already admitted this in preliminary hearings before Associate Justice Daly.

We consider that there has been a gross violation of fundamental human rights, denial of justice in the
preliminary judgements of the Legal Services Commissioner, the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee and the
3 Supreme Court Judges who have presided over preliminary hearings – especially as two of them, Associate
Justice Evans and Justice Hartley Hansen should have excused themselves from the proceedings on grounds
of not just apparent bias (according to unanimous High Court Authority of Johnson v Johnson [200] 211 CLR
448) but probably on grounds of demonstrated bias. The perversion of justice and contempt principles
discussed recently by the New South Wales Supreme Court (Justice James 17 March 2009) in R v Einfeld may
yet need to be considered by the Full High Court in the context of the Supreme Court of Victoria Judges who
have presided in these proceedings affecting Mr Johnson.

We advise that we previously sought legal aid funding for these proceedings in January 2009. When the VLAO
rejected that application, citing bizarrely ‘lack of public interest’, this firm had no choice but to cease to represent
Mr Johnson. We appreciate that VLAO may not have appreciated the ‘public interest’ in these proceedings at
the start of this year. Certainly the public interest issues, denial of justice, denial of access to justice etc have
exploded since Sutton Johnson ceased carriage of the matter 2 months ago.

We provided copies of pleadings up to the start of January 2009 to VLAO as part of that application for legal aid
funding. We trust that earlier grant application will be readily accessible to you, along with your Office’s earlier
working papers, for the purposes of considering this application. There have been substantial additional
pleadings and submissions – LPLC funded attempts by the 4 defendant Australian legal practitioners seeking to
be acquitted without trial, and a similar ‘copy cat’ attempt by the PI insurer-funded psychologist defendant by
counterclaim.

Having read the VLAO recent submission to the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, we are
confident that the VLAO will appreciate this opportunity as a valuable test case of how far the Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Act may have altered the human rights landscape – as this case has
implications for all arms of Government at Victorian and Federal levels, including several legal regulatory
bodies, and may even give the Victorian Supreme Court, if not the High Court, an opportunity to consider the
extent to which Australian Legal Practitioners (and even Federal Judges exercising functions under federal
statutory law, the Family Law Act and the Federal Magistrates Court Act) are required now by statute (the
Charter) or indeed by longstanding common law (going back to 1215 and Magna Charta or at least 1689 UK Bill
of Rights (Statute of William and Mary)) to perform their functions consistently with upholding Victorian human
rights laws. It is almost embarrassing to this firm to have to even question whether Australian legal practitioners
have a legal obligation at law (statutory or judge made common law) to uphold human rights. We hope that the
Courts will deliver a comprehensive ‘YES’ to that – or the Attorney-General (and VLAO) are wasting their time
introducing (advocating) Human Rights Acts if lawyers (barristers, solicitors and judges) are allowed full and free
licence to side-step Human Rights laws.

We enclose an application for grant of legal aid, in order that Mr Johnson can be represented by this firm again,
and Counsel in these proceedings.

We are instructed that Mr Johnson is confident that Associate Justice Daly will send the LPLC and its 4 city
lawyers and 4 city barristers packing with their attempts to have his counterclaims dismissed, effectively
acquitting them without trial. If events unfold thus, then as Mr Johnson’s lawyers again this firm will have the
task of drawing up his substantial counterclaim document (his ‘defence’ being redundant now due to the
settlement between him and original plaintiff ANZ Bank). This will require substantial work as it crosses
professional negligence laws, government laws, human rights law, constitutional laws. Ideally, two or even 3
counsel (expertise in different areas) will be required just to settle the pleadings. We anticipate that there are
other parties that should be included (even re-included) in these proceedings, involving additional consideration
of complex legal issues and collection of evidence.

If, contrary to indications to date, Associate Justice Daly were to uphold the LPLC funded strike out actions, and
weirder things have happened, then (a) Mr Johnson would be seeking leave to appeal to a Trial Division Judge;
and (b) presumably the proceedings would (perhaps with a delay pending that appeal) proceed against the
other remaining 6 or so defendants by counterclaim. Either way, it will be necessary to review and settle Mr
Johnson’s pleadings. His original defence and counterclaim he drafted himself as a holding document which he
has explained at the outset, Mr Johnson having no skills or expertise in litigation.
We enclose with this application a copy of Mr Johnson’s recent submissions. Associate Justice Daly has not yet
set a date for the matter to come back before her. Mr Johnson anticipates a hearing before her some time
around or, hopefully, after, related proceedings resume before the Court of Appeal (Chief Justice Warren and
AJA Coghlan) on Friday 14 August 2009.

If this application is successful, we would of course be seeking VLAO funding only in respect of future work.
This firm has recently engaged a senior legal counsel with relevant capacity to represent Mr Johnson, subject to
legal aid funding becoming available.

There is a strong public interest in VLAO funding this appeal. This is emphasised by the fact that the Legal
Practitioners Liability Committee is funding 4 city law firms and 4 city barristers to represent lawyer defendants
in these proceedings, whilst Mr Johnson has been rendered economically destroyed (and annihilated, not just
marginalised) by the actions against him. Mr Johnson is awaiting responses from the Victorian Human Rights
Commissioner and the Victorian Attorney-General whether they will intervene pursuant to the Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. Mr Johnson is also awaiting responses from the Australian Human
Rights Commissioner and the Federal Attorney-General as to whether they will intervene in these proceedings
as anima curae. This firm has every expectation that they will.

Mr Johnson’s submissions describe a number of important High Court decisions that the Trial Judge has, it
seems to us, failed to apply correctly. These include Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw, Jones v Dunkeld, and
Johnson v Johnson (no relations). Indeed, it could almost be said that Justice Stephen Kaye has declared the
Victorian Supreme Court as a succession State, no longer bound by the laws made by the High Court of
Australia (unanimously or otherwise). This case also is the first, we believe, to require a re-examination of the
High Court decision in D’Orta-Edenke (and Gianarelli v Wraith, to the extent that it remains any part of the
laws of this State/Country) since the commencement of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
Act.

We attach copies of correspondences between Mr Johnson and the Atttorney-General’s Department and
between Mr Johnson and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Ted Baillieu, which demonstrate beyond all measure
of doubt the public interest in Mr Johnson’s appeal being properly presented and properly argued, on an equal
footing, with the defendants who have the benefit of unlimited funding from the Legal Practitioners Liability
Committee.

We note that it would be neigh impossible for the VLAO, having regard to its recent submission to the National
Human Rights Consultation Committee (24 June 2009) in favour of a national Human Rights Act to reject Mr
Johnson’s application for legal aid. Indeed, given VLAO’s accurate announcement in the opening words of that
submission of VLAO’s ‘mandate is to protect legal rights with a particular emphasis on the rights of the
marginalised and the economically disadvantage’, with all respect the VLAO would expose itself to
irrefutable criticism of being derelict in VLAO’s own mandate and VLAO’s own human rights responsibilities
under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (and even invite legal action from Mr Johnson
to vindicate his rights to the protection of the VLAO) should this application for legal aid funding be refused, or
even be tardily granted.

Please note the urgency with which this grant application requires a response.

Kind regards
SUTTON LAWYERS