Login
ACT solicitor accuses Supreme Court judge of ‘enforcing’ racism
A solicitor who alleged the ACT Law Society was racist has accused a Supreme Court judge of promoting the “hatred” and “unfavourable treatment” of people of colour in the legal profession.
Naomi Neilson
Emmanuel Ezekiel-Hart made sensational allegations that the Law Society delayed granting him a practising certificate because of his race while approving only “white lawyers” who had been found guilty of criminal or professional offences “without delay”.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
After his application for a certificate was refused, Mr Ezekiel-Hart made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, which directed the issue to the ACT’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT).
ACAT struck the matter out as an “abuse of process”, and Mr Ezekiel-Hart failed to appeal this in the state’s Supreme Court.
In new proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Mr Ezekiel-Hart has alleged ACT Supreme Court’s Justice David Mossop used his powers to endorse the racism he claimed exists in the profession.
“Black Africans are hated everywhere without just cause as in this case even His Honour has used his discretional powers to dispense with rules to enforce the hatred of [sic] unfavourable treatment and ensure Black African (sic) does not have justice provided by law,” Mr Ezekiel-Hart submitted in one of his 17 grounds of appeal.
Court of Appeal’s Chief Justice Lucy McCallum said the ground was rhetorical and the “assertions it makes are unfounded”.
Most of his grounds of appeal were either found to be without merit, were rhetorical, or were repetitive. The application was struck out.
In another “rhetorical” assertion, Mr Ezekiel-Hart claimed the “abusive conduct” of the Law Society “demonstrate that conclusions of the court were erroneous and does not serve the interest of justice”.
Mr Ezekiel-Hart also claimed Justice Mossop found “the effect of the discrimination and victimisation was continuous, was wrong and meant to punish the appellant and oppress him for seeking protection from the court in a helpless situation”.
He went on to add the decision “achieved an unintended result of perpetual alienation of the appellant from the ACT with incessant punishment of discrimination and victimisation for seeking his rights”.
“This ground proceeds on an incorrect premise. Mossop J did not find there was any discrimination or victimisation of Mr Ezekiel-Hart, let alone that was continuous,” Chief Justice McCallum said.
Justice McCallum found Mr Ezekiel-Hart’s application “is without merit” and refused leave to appeal.
