Matthew Guy: David Vincent loses case to overturn Bulleen election result

An independent candidate who sought to have former Victorian Liberal leader Matthew Guy impeached for corruption and wanted to sit in parliament in Mr Guy’s place has had his case dismissed by a Victorian court.

David Vincent lodged a petition in the Court of Disputed Returns in December that disputed Mr Guy’s election as the member for Bulleen, arguing that “corruption is present in Victoria” and stating that the former leader was not a fit and proper person to sit in parliament.

But Mr Vincent, who attended court on Tuesday morning in a suit and bow tie, was unsuccessful in his attempt to overturn Mr Guy’s election, with Judge John Dixon ruling that the petition be dismissed on the grounds that it was “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious”, an abuse of process and ultimately an “exercise in vanity”.

Mr Vincent stood as an independent in November’s Victorian election in Mr Guy’s seat; however, he received only 214 first preference votes – more than 20,000 fewer than Mr Guy and the lowest number of votes by any of the eight candidates.

But Mr Vincent, in support of his petition, referred to a 2022 joint IBAC and Ombudsman report that highlighted corruption in Victoria, made allegations against Mr Guy derived from Wikipedia entries, and said the former Liberal leader’s how-to-vote cards breached “the spirit and intent of the law”, according to Judge Dixon’s judgment.

Mr Vincent initially sought for Mr Guy to be removed from his lower house seat in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs and for him to take his place.

In a later proposal circulated in February, Mr Vincent sought Mr Guy’s impeachment and, if not himself, another Victorian “with decades of integrity and experience” to be the new member.

But Judge Dixon found the petition wasn’t recognised on any legal grounds.

His judgment also revealed how a well-known Melbourne barrister became involved in the proceedings brought against Mr Guy.

One of the names on the petition, Robert Richter KC, said he had “no recollection” of the petition or witnessing any documents for the Court of Disputed Returns, according to Mr Guy’s legal team.

In a later discussion with Mr Guy’s lawyer, Rohan Ajzensztat, Mr Richter said he recalled signing a handwritten document that was not the petition.

“The untested explanation may be open that Mr Richter thought the blank page he signed was not an Electoral Act petition but rather a general petition for action against corruption directed to an unidentified recipient,” Judge Dixon wrote.

Judge Dixon said the Court of Disputed Returns had no power to award Mr Vincent the relief he sought, which included being appointed Governor or Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, nor “impeach” a member of parliament.

“These purported powers of the court simply do not exist,” he wrote.

Judge Dixon said Mr Vincent’s claims, such as Mr Guy committing wrongdoing in public office and voters acting under duress in electing him, were “scandalous and unsupported”.

Judge Dixon also awarded standard costs against Mr Vincent.