An Australian judge who dismissed a lawsuit against Pfizer, which alleged that the company knowingly violated laws regarding genetically modified organisms with its Covid-19 mRNA vaccine, failed to disclose that she had been on Pfizer’s legal payroll.

Helen Rofe QC directly represented Pfizer in at least five long-running legal cases before she adjudicated the case regarding Covid-19 vaccines, finding in Pfizer’s favor and dismissing the lawsuit which threatened to stop the Big Pharma giant from disseminating the vaccine in Australia..

However, Rofe’s decision allowed Pfizer and Moderna to continue rolling out the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines within Australia which became one of the most vaccinated nations in the world.

As recounted in a detailed article by eminent law Professors Augusto Zimmermann and Gabriël Moens, in ‘Re Dr Julian Fidge v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor’, injunctions were sought in the Federal Court against Pfizer and Moderna on the basis that they failed to apply for necessary licenses to deal with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Australia under the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act).

Dr Fidge sought to present evidence showing the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna objectively satisfy the legal definitions of GMOs, pursuant to section 10 of the Act.

If this were the case, the court then had to consider the question whether Pfizer and Moderna had knowingly breached the GT Act.

Sky News report: If the court so found, then Pfizer and Moderna would be prevented from further using their mRNA COVID vaccines in Australia.

The judge hearing the matter, Helen Rofe, found in favour of Pfizer and Moderna, dismissing Dr Fidge’s case on the grounds that it had no prospects of success since he is not an “aggrieved person” for the purposes of section 147 of the GT Act.

This is where the matter gets intriguing.

To avoid any reasonable apprehension of bias, judges are required to consider whether having acted for one of the parties appearing before them in the past ought to be disclosed.

However, the law firm representing Dr Fidge alleges that at no stage either prior to or during the hearing of the case, did Justice Rofe disclose that, while practicing as a barrister, she seemingly both directly and indirectly represented Pfizer in at least five separate and long-running matters.

As Zimmermann and Moens affirm, the rules regarding judicial bias require that, when a judge has had prior dealings with one or more parties to proceedings, he or she is obliged to consider disclosing all details and inviting the parties to make submissions on whether that judge should recuse him or herself from the proceedings.

While her Honour’s work as counsel for Pfizer is a matter of public record, it is alleged that no such disclosure was made to Dr Fidge’s legal team occur in this case.

TRENDING: Japan: ‘Billions of Dying Vaxxed Have Dementia – Perpetrators Must Be Punished’

The complaint, by PJ O’Brien & Associates, against Justice Rofe has been made not just to the Federal Court, but also to all Members and Senators of Parliament in accordance with section 72 (ii) of the Commonwealth Constitution, which allows judges to be removed from their position on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity.

Irrespective of the merits of the case, as stated in the complaint, “a reasonable observer could and can conclude that by Justice Rofe not disclosing the prior and significant relationship with Pfizer, and close working relationships and familial ties (with the pharmaceutical industry), this created and creates a perception her Honour intended to conceal her prior relationship with Pfizer, and ostensibly from the applicant in the case (Dr Fidge)”.

The complaint is being supported in the Parliament by Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent MP.

This matter is not as much about COVID as it is about the principle of judicial integrity.