<div><br />
</div><img alt="" media_type="3" src="https://d2g8igdw686xgo.cloudfront.net/96695239_1763553413196092_r.png" width="100%" />
<div>JUSTICE DENIED: The Supreme Court Judicial Review of Burner &amp; Bawden v City of Salisbury
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div><a href="https://substack.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><a href="https://substack.com/" target="_blank" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">https://substack.com/</a></a>@matildabawden/p-179024275
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>This was never just a dispute between two "rogue" Councillors &amp; the City of Salisbury. It was a public interest action to expose maladministration &amp; demand accountability. Justice McDonald's judgment strayed far from the issues before her, representing a significant failure to protect duly elected community representatives, especially when advocating for minority groups.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>WHAT WE ARGUED:
</div>
<div>•	That Council actions were taken to silence public interest disclosures &amp; suppress legitimate political criticism.
</div>
<div>•	That behavioural standards were being weaponised to gag elected representatives who were fulfilling their duty to question the administration.
</div>
<div>•	That the Council repeatedly acted without transparency, improperly excluding the public &amp; media from key decisions.
</div>
<div>•	That the Council was motivated by apprehended bias when voting to remove the Councillors.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>WHAT THE COURT FOCUSED ON:
</div>
<div>•	A narrow, technical interpretation of the Local Government Act.
</div>
<div>•	It failed to address the substance of the maladministration claims.
</div>
<div>•	It effectively endorsed the Council's actions, setting a chilling precedent for any elected official or citizen who dares to speak out.
</div>
<div>•	A disparaging view of the Councillors (e.g., “defiant”, “conspiracy types” who “refused to apologise”).
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>WHY THIS JUDGMENT IS DANGEROUS:
</div>
<div>If this ruling is left unchallenged, it creates a "playbook" for councils &amp; public bodies to:
</div>
<div>1.	<strong>Crush Dissent:</strong> Use "confidentiality" &amp; "behavioural" complaints to punish whistleblowers &amp; critics.
</div>
<div>2. <strong>Avoid Transparency:</strong> Justify secret meetings, shielding their decisions from public &amp; media scrutiny.
</div>
<div>3.	<strong>Exploit Formal Procedures:</strong> Use Council motions to publicly defame, humiliate, &amp; denigrate Councillors.
</div>
<div>4.	<strong>Waste Public Funds:</strong> Use ratepayer money to fund costly legal actions against the very people elected to represent them.
</div>
<div>5.	<strong>Degrade Elected Members:</strong> Treat Councillors as less entitled to fair treatment than employees (e.g., denial of sick leave, workplace bullying protection).
</div>
<div>6. <strong>Set a Dangerous Precedent:</strong> The judgment argues that the "political nature" of councils means they are not bound by the same standards of impartiality as other decision-makers.
</div>
<div>7.	<strong>Undermine Natural Justice: </strong>This allows political rivalries to "override" the fundamental right to an unbiased hearing, rendering the principles of apprehended bias &amp; natural justice meaningless in a council context.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>By applying the test of “apprehended bias” so loosely, the Court has effectively negated legal principles of bias &amp; given a green light for political bias to infect what should be an impartial process for the removal of elected officials.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>This fight is for every South Aussie who believes in open government, public sector integrity, &amp; the right to hold power to account. If allowed to stand, this ruling will certainly spill over into the removal of elected members in State &amp; Federal governments. We are appealing this decision, but we need your help to fund the next stage of the appeal to the Full Supreme Court.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Lodgement of the appeal in time of the 20/11/25 deadline will be $13,150, but total costs will be $70,000.
</div>

Help Us Hold Councils Accountable

Still $1,895 to go. Help us build momentum.