Vincent O'Donoghue claimed he was given inadequate dental care while in custody. The Court ruled that under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO(1) the Commonwealth must have been a party to a previous terminated complaint in order to be joined as a respondent.
The judgment states that -
This is one of several applications Mr O’Donoghue has commenced against various government authorities since the Republic of Ireland has sought to extradite him in connection with fraud charges. He is now in custody in Dublin following his extradition on 10 April 2013 pursuant to a surrender warrant issued under s 23 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) (EA).
Prior to his extradition, Mr O’Donoghue was incarcerated in Hakea Prison in Western Australia. This was pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate under s 19(9) EA.
Mr O’Donoghue has been qualified as a solicitor in Ireland and has found little difficulty in preparing court documents and presenting arguments. He has not, however, enjoyed success in those arguments.O’Donoghue's originating application under s 46PO(1) of the AHRC Act alleged unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) by the "State of Western Australia – Department of Corrective Services" and "Dr Philip Hames", claiming that
The respondents and the third respondent as disclosed agent, have individually and collectively, jointly and severally, and knowingly with malice [sic] aforethought colluded to discriminate against the applicant contrary to law.
The respondents and the third respondent as disclosed agent have individually and collectively, jointly and severally and knowingly with malice [sic] aforethought colluded to victimise the applicant contrary to law and the second respondent has defamed the applicant.
The respondents and the third respondent as disclosed agent have individually and collectively, jointly and severally and knowingly with malice [sic] aforethought colluded to operate, conduct, permit and promote an unlawful policy based on discrimination and victimisation contrary to law.
The respondents and the third respondent as disclosed agent have individually and collectively, jointly and severally and knowingly with malice [sic] aforethought colluded to breach their respective duties of care including statutory duties according to law.O’Donoghue modestly sought
- An order of mandamus
- An injunction
- An apology from the second respondent
- An apology from the first respondent on behalf of its disclosed agent the second respondent
- Exemplary and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00
The Commonwealth of Australia is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the State of Western Australia its servants or agents. The applicant has sought and the respondents, its servants and agents and the Commonwealth of Australia as disclosed principal, have failed, refused and neglected to provide or afford proper, reasonable or adequate dental care to the applicant since 2009 because of a policy which is unlawful, discriminatory and in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the AHRC Act and federal and state law.
