Can I sue an ACT public servant for abuse of public office? "

You can’t sue as the statute of limitations is 6 years. Further, it is hard to prove misfeasance as it relates to malice on the part of the public servant. Then you have to deal with vicarious liability as employers are deemed legally responsible for the acts of their employees. Than after that most legislation has clauses that exclude public servants from legal liability. However, if you wish your story to go public, publish it!

Sure, you can sue them. Would you be successful? Very unlikely. Just look at the record: the TaMS Whisleblower, the Obsetrics/Maternity unit bullying, and any number of other cases you can think of where the complaint has been genuine but the government has moved heaven and earth to cover up.

If you feel really strongly about it, make a complaint to the Ombudsman, phone them back after a month or two to ask what they’ve done, and then be prepared to show how your loss is ongoing and why you have waited so long, and then follow up again when you still haven’t heard from them only to discover they haven’t actually read your complaint yet.

You could also try the Public Service Commissioner (you know, the one with the ACTPLA-approved house), but the same applies.

liability said :

Firstly, your link doesn’t work, might want to try that again.

After 8 years. Nil hope.

The tort reform laws that were introduced last decade placed time limitation on most claims. Your post doesn’t say what the loss that you have suffered is, so it makes it impossible for anyone here to post any meaningful replies.

Generally the time limit for trying to obtain any conviction for the breaking of administrative law is 12 months. By that I mean any action must be started within a 12 month period of the law breaking ocurring.

Even then, as Banco said, you would need a pretty solid case with actual evidence not hearsay to even get it past the DPP.

Malfeasance in public office is quite hard to prove and you’ll almost certainly be going up against the ACT Government rather than the individual as Governments virtually always have legal assistance arrangements in place for staff/former staff who are named as defendants due to something they did in the course of their work.

You better have minimum $25000 in cash for your legal fees and if you lose you better have another $50,000 or so handy for costs.

Okay, just realised that OP’s link is to a post made in 1996 on a website. OP needs to look at something a bit more recent I would think, given the changes in the tort laws in the last decade.

Firstly, your link doesn’t work, might want to try that again.

After 8 years. Nil hope.

The tort reform laws that were introduced last decade placed time limitation on most claims. Your post doesn’t say what the loss that you have suffered is, so it makes it impossible for anyone here to post any meaningful replies.

Given that (1) Robinson’s peper didn’t address liability in the ACT, (2) Racz vs Home Office relates to UK law and (3) you’ve provided little information about the event that caused you harm or loss, I don’t think we can give you any better advice than to talk to a solicitor.

It’s sometimes part of a public servant’s job to commit an act that cause people great detriment. If they act legally, within their authority, then it’s very difficult to win a case against them,

If you sue the public servant directly, then he or she could argue that he/she was simply following orders.

If the public servant was acting on orders to commit an act that caused you great detriment, AND if that act was contrary to the law, then why not sue the person who issued the order?

Pay and see a lawyer.

I hope all those people who made non-constructive, cynical and disparaging remarks all feel that little better about their small-time little selves.

Justiz will be served.