Ascic, In the matter of an application for leave to issue a proceeding

[2015] HCATrans 305

[2015] HCATrans 305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P46 of 2015

In the matter of ‑

an application by ANA ASCIC for leave to issue a proceeding

GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON TUESDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2015, AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HER HONOUR:   This is an application for leave to issue an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia given on 29 May 2015. On 16 September 2015, Justice Nettle directed that pursuant to rule 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) the application for special leave was not to be issued or filed without leave of a Justice being obtained by the applicant. This is that application.

An affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the application for leave to issue states that the proposed application for special leave to appeal concerns a traffic offence of careless driving of which the applicant was convicted in the Armidale Magistrates Court on 28 February 2012.  The special leave application annexed to the ex parte application seeking leave to issue it is headed “Exceptional Circumstances Application for Special Leave to appeal from a conviction obtained by fraud”.  Ten appeal grounds are listed.

In the decision complained about the Court of Appeal (see Ascic v Bedworth [2015] WASCA 109) dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to file an appeal notice on the grounds, amongst others, that her application for leave to appeal to a single judge against conviction had been dismissed, her previous appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision as well as an application for leave to extend time and adduce additional evidence in the appeal had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal (see Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174) and the High Court had refused her application for special leave to appeal from that decision (see [2013] HCASL 200). As the Court of Appeal stated, a second appeal would have been beyond that court’s jurisdiction and incompetent.

The application for special leave to appeal against the second decision of the Court of Appeal ([2015] WASCA 109) raises no arguable ground of appeal. The “grounds” listed are, in fact, largely a recitation of the history of the matter from the applicant’s perspective and are unintelligible. The reasons of the Court of Appeal are comprehensive and obviously correct. In the result, the application which the applicant seeks to issue would be vexatious and oppressive and, accordingly, leave to issue the application should be refused.

The order of the Court is that the application for leave to issue the application for special leave is refused.

AT 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED