Rogerson v Australia (HRC, 2002)

Violations: ICCPR art 14(3)(c)

Remedy's assessment: Remedied

The UN says:

The Committee considers that its finding of a violation of the rights of the author under article 14(3)(c), of the Covenant constitutes sufficient remedy …

HRC (2002)

English-Australian barrister Andrew Rogerson was practising in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia and receiving treatment for bipolar mood disorder (‘manic depression’). A client cancelled Mr Rogerson’s retainer then took out a restraining order against him. Mr Rogerson resisted attempts to serve the restraining order, later claiming ‘his deranged behaviour [was] indicative of his poor mental state at the time’. In 1992, he was found in contempt of court and his practising certificate was cancelled. Complaining in his UN petition that his appeal to the NT Court of Appeal took two years, he said he suffered a ‘destroyed career, broken health and de facto bankruptcy’.

The HRC dismissed a number of Mr Rogerson’s complaints against Australia, but found that he had suffered a violation of his right to be tried without delay. The Committee regarded its finding of a violation constituted ‘sufficient remedy’ and recommended no substantive remedies.

Ironically, the Rogerson decision was the slowest of all those concerning Australia, taking six years to be concluded. By then, Mr Rogerson had returned to the UK, where he resumed practice as a barrister.

The HRC did not recommend any action on Australia’s part and has declared the case satisfactorily concluded. The author cannot be located.

For source details, see Remedy Australia's 2014 Follow-up Report (PDF 1.3Mb).

See similar cases: