Kant – Writ of Summons (12 April 2024)

Form 20 – Writ of summons
Note: see rule 27.01.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MELBOURNE REGISTRY

BETWEEN: JAN MAREK KANT
Plaintiff

and

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SECURITY
Defendant

WRIT OF SUMMONS

KING CHARLES THE THIRD, by the Grace of God, King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth:

TO THE DEFENDANT
The Director-General of Security
The Australian Government Solicitor

TAKE NOTICE that this proceeding has been brought against you by the plaintiff for the claim set out in this Writ.

IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of appearance.

IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save as to costs, you may file a submitting appearance.

THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE is as follows:
(a) where you are served with the application within Australia – 14 days from the date of service;
(b) in any other case – 42 days from the date of service.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

-2-

[paragraph 1 through paragraph 22 redacted]

ILLEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Interpretation

23. The lex specialis doctrine applies in construction of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 with mind to Protective Security Policy Framework.
24. The expressio unius est exclusio alterius doctrine applies in construction of Protective Security Policy Framework.
25. The expressio unius est exclusio alterius doctrine applies to ejusdem generis in construction of Protective Security Policy Framework.

[paragraph 26 through paragraph 108 redacted]

-10-

EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS AFFAIRS

Special intelligence operations conducted by ASIO

The Defendant

109. The Defendant participated in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
110. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, the Defendant furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
111. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, the Defendant furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
112. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, the Defendant engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

113. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
114. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
115. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

-11-

116. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO affiliates

117. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
118. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
119. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
120. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

121. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the contract, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
122. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or

-12-

advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

123. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
124. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

125. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the agreement, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
126. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
127. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
128. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the

-13-

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

129. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the arrangement, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
130. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
131. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
132. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Special intelligence operations not conducted by ASIO

The Defendant

133. The Defendant participated in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,

-14-

134. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, the Defendant furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
135. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, the Defendant furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
136. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, the Defendant engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

137. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
138. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
139. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
140. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

-15-

ASIO affiliates

141. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
142. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
143. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
144. While participating in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

145. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the contract, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
146. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
147. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security

-16-

Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

148. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

149. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the agreement, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
150. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
151. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
152. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

-17-

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

153. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the arrangement, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs; and,
154. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
155. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
156. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in special intelligence operations conducted, not by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in relation to the Plaintiff and/or his affairs, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Security vetting by ASIO

The Defendant

157. The Defendant participated in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
158. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, the

-18-

Defendant furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

159. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, the Defendant furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
160. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, the Defendant engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

161. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
162. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
163. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
164. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO affiliates

165. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,

-19-

166. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
167. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
168. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

169. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
170. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
171. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
172. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

-20-

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

173. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
174. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
175. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
176. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

177. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
178. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

-21-

179. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
180. While participating in security vetting by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Security vetting otherwise than by ASIO

The Defendant

181. The Defendant participated in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
182. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, the Defendant furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
183. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, the Defendant furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
184. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, the Defendant engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

185. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security

-22-

Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,

186. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
187. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
188. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO affiliates

189. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
190. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
191. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
192. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a

-23-

security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

193. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
194. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
195. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
196. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

197. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
198. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a

-24-

qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

199. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
200. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

201. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance; and,
202. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
203. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
204. While participating in security vetting, otherwise than by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to assess the Plaintiff’s suitability to hold a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract

-25-

or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Communication with sponsoring agencies

The Defendant

205. The Defendant communicated with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance in relation to the ongoing suitability of the Plaintiff to hold a security clearance; and,
206. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, the Defendant furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
207. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, the Defendant furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
208. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, the Defendant engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

209. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation communicated with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance in relation to the ongoing suitability of the Plaintiff to hold a security clearance; and,
210. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
211. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
212. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

-26-

ASIO affiliates

213. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation communicated with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance in relation to the ongoing suitability of the Plaintiff to hold a security clearance; and,
214. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
215. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
216. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

217. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, communicated with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance in relation to the ongoing suitability of the Plaintiff to hold a security clearance; and,
218. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
219. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
220. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

-27-

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

221. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, communicated with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance in relation to the ongoing suitability of the Plaintiff to hold a security clearance; and,
222. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
223. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
224. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

225. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, communicated with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance in relation to the ongoing suitability of the Plaintiff to hold a security clearance; and,
226. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
227. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

-28-

228. While communicating with a sponsoring agency for a security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Other security clearance related activities

The Defendant

229. The Defendant participated in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance; and,
230. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, the Defendant furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
231. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, the Defendant furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
232. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, the Defendant engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

233. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance; and,
234. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, employees of

-29-

the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

235. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
236. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO affiliates

237. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance; and,
238. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
239. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
240. While participating in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or

-30-

communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

241. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the contract, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance; and,
242. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
243. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
244. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

245. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the agreement, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than

-31-

security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance; and,

246. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
247. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
248. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

249. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the arrangement, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance; and,
250. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance,

-32-

persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

251. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
252. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in security vetting activities in relation to the Plaintiff, other than security vetting to assess his suitability to hold a security clearance or communicating with an agency that sponsored his security clearance, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Examination otherwise

The Defendant

253. The Defendant participated in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations; and,
254. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, the Defendant furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
255. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, the Defendant furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

-33-

256. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, the Defendant engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

257. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations; and,
258. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
259. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
260. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO affiliates

261. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participated in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations; and,
262. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
263. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations,

-34-

affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

264. While participating in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

265. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the contract, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations; and,
266. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
267. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
268. While participating, in connexion with a contract entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

269. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the

-35-

agreement, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations; and,

270. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
271. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
272. While participating, in connexion with an agreement (other than a contract) entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into an agreement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

273. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, participated, in connexion with the arrangement, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations; and,
274. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished an opinion or advice, or a qualification of an opinion of advice, that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,

-36-

275. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, furnished information that was prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff; and/or,
276. While participating, in connexion with an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) entered into with ASIO, in examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs otherwise than in the conduct of security vetting activities or special intelligence operations, persons who entered into an arrangement with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Personnel security adjudicative guidelines

277. The Defendant and/or another one or more persons employed by or affiliated with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or having otherwise entered into a contract or an agreement or another arrangement with ASIO, in connexion with appointment to or employment by or affiliation with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or in connexion with a contract or agreement or another arrangement entered into with ASIO, were party to assessment of the Plaintiff against common risk factor areas per the personnel security adjudicative guidelines of the Protective Security Policy Framework; and,

2.b trustworthiness

278. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s whole person in the context of criminal history and conduct; and/or,
279. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs for information that reflects current or recurring patterns of vulnerability to influence; and/or,
280. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s whole person in the context of security attitudes and violations; and/or,

-37-

281. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs for information that reflects current or recurring patterns of questionable judgement; and/or,

2.c maturity

282. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s whole person in the context of financial considerations; and/or,
283. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs for information that reflects current or recurring patterns of irresponsibility; and/or,
284. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s ability to cope with stress; and/or,
285. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs for information that reflects current or recurring patterns of immaturity; and/or,

2.d tolerance

286. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s life, including personal relationships, employment history, behaviour and financial habits; and/or,
287. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs for information that reflects current or recurring patterns of vulnerability to coercion; and/or,
288. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s whole person in the context of personal relationships and conduct; and/or,
289. such assessment involved examination into the Plaintiff’s ability to remain flexible and accept differences in people, opinions or situations through respect, understanding and empathy; and/or,

-38-

2.e resilience

290. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s ability to adapt well in the face of significant sources of stress; and/or,
291. such assessment involved examination into the Plaintiff’s ability to remain impartial and accept differences in people through respect; and/or,
292. such assessment involved examination into the Plaintiff’s ability to remain impartial and accept differences in situations through empathy; and/or,
293. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff and/or his affairs for information that reflects current or recurring patterns of emotionally unstable behaviour; and/or,
294. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s ability to adapt well in the face of adversity; and/or,
295. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s whole person in the context of mental health disorders; and/or,

2.f loyalty

296. such assessment involved examination into soundness of the Plaintiff’s character; and/or,
297. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s political views incompatible with the Australian democratic system of government; and/or,
298. such assessment involved examination into stability of the Plaintiff’s character; and/or,
299. such assessment involved examination of the Plaintiff’s commitment to the democratic processes of the Australian Government; and/or,

-39-

Prescribed administrative action

The Defendant

300. The Defendant took prescribed administrative action prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO employees

301. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation took prescribed administrative action prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO affiliates

302. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation took prescribed administrative action prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

303. One or more persons who entered into contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, took, in connexion with the contract, prescribed administrative action prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

304. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract)
     with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, took, in connexion with the agreement,
     prescribed administrative action prejudicial to the interests of the Plaintiff.
     Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO
305. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or
     agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, took, in connexion with the
     agreement, prescribed administrative action prejudicial to the interests of the
     Plaintiff.

BREACH OF DUTY

The Defendant

306. The Defendant caused unnecessary prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
307. The Defendant caused excessive prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
308. The Defendant caused unreasonable prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.

-40-

ASIO employees

309. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation caused unnecessary prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
310. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation caused excessive prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
311. One or more employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation caused unreasonable prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.

ASIO affiliates

312. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation caused unnecessary prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
313. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation caused excessive prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
314. One or more affiliates of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation caused unreasonable prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by contract

315. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their contract with ASIO, unnecessary prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
316. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their contract with ASIO, excessive prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
317. One or more persons who entered into a contract with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their contract with ASIO, unreasonable prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons by non-contractual agreement with ASIO

318. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their agreement with ASIO, unnecessary prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.

-41-

319. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their agreement with ASIO, excessive prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
320. One or more persons who entered into an agreement (other than a contract) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their agreement with ASIO, unreasonable prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.

Entrusted Persons other than by agreement with ASIO

321. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their agreement with ASIO, unnecessary prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
322. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their agreement with ASIO, excessive prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.
323. One or more persons who entered into an arrangement (other than a contract or agreement) with ASIO, other than as an ASIO affiliate, caused, in connexion with their agreement with ASIO, unreasonable prejudice to the interests of the Plaintiff.

HUMAN RIGHTS
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

[paragraph 324 through paragraph 330 redacted]

Article 2 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

331. Failure or refusal by the Court to determine the matter, as brought by the Plaintiff and without unreasonable delay, exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 2 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
332. Failure or refusal to provide relief as claimed by the Plaintiff exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 2 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 4 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

333. Failure or refusal by the Court to determine the matter, as brought by the Plaintiff and without unreasonable delay, exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 4 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
334. Failure or refusal to provide relief as claimed by the Plaintiff exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 4 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

-43-

Article 9 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

335. Failure or refusal by the Court to determine the matter, as brought by the Plaintiff and without unreasonable delay, exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 9 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
336. Failure or refusal to provide relief as claimed by the Plaintiff exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 9 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

337. Failure or refusal by the Court to determine the matter, as brought by the Plaintiff and without unreasonable delay, exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
338. Failure or refusal to provide relief as claimed by the Plaintiff exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 15 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

339. Failure or refusal by the Court to determine the matter, as brought by the Plaintiff and without unreasonable delay, exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 15 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
340. Failure or refusal to provide relief as claimed by the Plaintiff exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 15 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

-44-

Article 25 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

341. Failure or refusal by the Court to determine the matter, as brought by the Plaintiff and without unreasonable delay, exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 25 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
342. Failure or refusal to provide relief as claimed by the Plaintiff exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 25 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

343. Failure or refusal by the Court to determine the matter, as brought by the Plaintiff and without unreasonable delay, exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
344. Failure or refusal to provide relief as claimed by the Plaintiff exhausts all remedies in respect of rights as in Article 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the purposes of Article 2 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[paragraph 345 through paragraph 354 redacted]

RELIEF

Damages

355. The Plaintiff claims damages, including exemplary damages, against the Commonwealth in tort.
356. The Plaintiff further seeks to claim damages, including exemplary damages, as appropriate, against one or more current or former Directors-General of Security and/or one or more ASIO employees and/or affiliates and/or persons having entered into contracts or agreements or arrangements with ASIO other than as ASIO affiliates.

Open-court orders

357. The Plaintiff claims relief in form of closed court orders, under s.28 Open Courts Act 2013, causing publication of the Court’s Reasons for decision in respect of every numbered item herein; or,
358. Alternatively: The Plaintiff claims relief in form of non-publication orders, under s.77RE Judiciary Act 1903, causing publication of the Court’s Reasons for decision in respect of every numbered item herein; or,
359. Alternatively: The Plaintiff claims relief in form of orders, under s.80 Judiciary Act 1903, causing publication of the Court’s Reasons for decision in respect of every numbered item herein; or,

-47-

360. Alternatively: The Plaintiff claims relief in form of orders, under common law, causing publication of the Court’s Reasons for decision in respect of every numbered item herein.

Non-suppression orders

361. The Plaintiff claims relief in form of proceeding suppression orders, under s.17 Open Courts Act 2013, causing that no information given or produced in this proceeding can at any time be made the subject of a suppression or non-publication order (however described) that limits its dissemination, except as necessary for protecting the safety of persons who would otherwise be identifiable.
362. Alternatively: The Plaintiff claims relief in form of suppression orders, under s.77RE Judiciary Act 1903, causing that no information given or produced in this proceeding can at any time be made the subject of a suppression or non-publication order (however described) that limits its dissemination, except as necessary for protecting the safety of persons who would otherwise be identifiable; or,
363. Alternatively: The Plaintiff claims relief in form of orders, under s.80 Judiciary Act 1903, causing that no information given or produced in this proceeding can at any time be made the subject of a suppression or non-publication order (however described) that limits its dissemination, except as necessary for protecting the safety of persons who would otherwise be identifiable; or,
364. Alternatively: The Plaintiff claims relief in form of orders, under common law, causing that no information given or produced in this proceeding can at any time be made the subject of a suppression or non-publication order (however described) that limits its dissemination, except as necessary for protecting the safety of persons who would otherwise be identifiable.

Costs, etc.

365. The Plaintiff claims costs or damages in lieu thereof.

-48-

Dated 12 April 2024

Plaintiff

The plaintiff is self-represented.