by Sayer Ji, Green Med Info:
In a startling turn of events that threatens to shake the foundations of judicial integrity, Federal Court Judge Helen Rofe finds herself at the center of a storm as investigations begin into her alleged failure to disclose crucial ties to pharmaceutical giant Pfizer while presiding over a high-stakes covid-19 mRNA vaccine lawsuit.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Quick Summary:
- Federal Court Judge Helen Rofe is under investigation for failing to disclose ties to Pfizer while presiding over a covid-19 mRNA vaccine lawsuit.
- Judge Rofe dismissed a case alleging Pfizer and Moderna violated GMO licensing laws without hearing evidence.
- The complaint alleges serious misconduct for not recusing herself or disclosing prior relationships with Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry.
- The case raises concerns about judicial independence and the need for clearer guidelines on judicial bias.
The Thin Line Between Past Associations and Present Impartiality
In a case that has sent shockwaves through Australia’s legal and medical communities, Federal Court Judge Helen Rofe is facing an unprecedented investigation into her conduct during a high-profile covid-19 vaccine lawsuit. The inquiry, confirmed by Chief Justice Debra Mortimer of the Federal Court of Australia, stems from Judge Rofe’s alleged failure to disclose her prior connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry while presiding over the Fidge v. Pfizer, Moderna case.
The lawsuit, brought forth by Dr. Julian Fidge, a General Practitioner and pharmacist from rural Victoria, alleged that the mRNA covid vaccines contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and that Pfizer and Moderna failed to obtain the necessary licenses to distribute these vaccines in Australia – a criminal offense under the Gene Technology Act 2000.
However, before any evidence could be presented, Judge Rofe dismissed the case in March 2024, ruling that Dr. Fidge lacked standing as he was not an “aggrieved person” for the purposes of trial and therefore had “no reasonable prospect” of success.
The controversy erupted when it was later revealed that Judge Rofe had represented Pfizer on at least five occasions between 2003-2006 during her time at the Bar. Furthermore, it came to light that Judge Rofe had family ties to the Grimwade pharmaceutical fortune, which later ran the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, a biomedical research organization that joined forces with Mermaid Bio in 2022 to develop mRNA vaccines.
These undisclosed connections have raised serious questions about judicial impartiality and the potential for conflicts of interest in high-stakes cases involving major pharmaceutical companies.
Katie Ashby-Koppens, the instructing solicitor from PJ O’Brien & Associates representing Dr. Fidge, filed a complaint with Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer. The complaint alleges serious misconduct, possibly rising to the level of misbehavior, for Judge Rofe’s failure to recuse herself or disclose her significant prior relationship with Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry.
“A judge is duty-bound and obliged to inform all perceivable conflicts – even if not actual – to all parties to a proceeding with sufficient time for them to ask or make application for a judge’s recusal,” Ashby-Koppens stated. She further argued that given the nature and extent of perceivable conflicts, Judge Rofe was duty-bound to advise the parties at the first case management conference, or preferably have declined the file from the registrar when she was first offered it.
The case has now caught the attention of Parliament, with copies of the complaint sent to both the Upper and Lower Houses for investigation, as is their prerogative under Section 72(2) of the Constitution. Queensland Senator Gerard Rennick commented, “If Judge Rofe did previously have dealings with Pfizer she should have disclosed those dealings. If she didn’t disclose them, then we need to ask why she didn’t disclose those dealings or it will undermine faith in the Judiciary.”
This case has brought to the forefront longstanding concerns about the clarity of rules and frameworks surrounding judicial bias. In August 2022, the Australian Law Reform Commission published a report following its inquiry into judicial impartiality and bias. One of the key recommendations was the establishment of a Federal judicial commission, as existing mechanisms for raising allegations of actual and apprehended bias were deemed “not sufficient to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.”
