Citizen Limbo v Officer

[1990] HCATrans 119

i~

~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry

B e t w e e n -

CITIZEN LIMBO

Applicant

and

OFFICER LITTLE

Respondent

Registry

In the matter of -

An application by

CITIZEN LIMBO

Application for extension of time and applications for waiver of fees

Limbo(3)

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

C3T2/l/DR 1 30/5/90

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Good morning, sir, I appear in person.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Citizen Limbo.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Because I have got a few documents I have asked

a friend to assist me at the table. This is

Bobby ..... who has done a mediation course at the

HIS HONOUR:  Somebody can sit with you. That is all right.

There is the application that was part heard from

the last occasion and there is, I see, another

application which was listed, I think, originally

to come on tomorrow morning. Shall we deal with that

also?

CITIZEN LIMBO: If it is convenient.

HIS HONOUR:  Very well. Will .we deal with them both together?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  They are all related, yes, sir. There is

also another matter of POLYUKHOVICH V COMMONWEALTH

OF AUSTRALIA and the DPP. I have asked for the file

to be brought in. It is just that there is a
notice of motion that was filed in that which is
referred to in the affidavits in the two matters

before you which is also relevant.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I have not seen anything of that file as

yet so we will come to that later. Let us deal with

these two to start with, I think.

CITIZEN LIMBO: Right. It is just that there is an affidavit

on file in that matter which I wish to refer to in

this application. That matter was filed, sir, on

15 May and in the second matter this morning the

affidavit before you refers to an affidavit, in that

paragraph l(b) refers to an affidavit in the

POLYUKHOVICH matter.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Citizen Limbo, as you have made the point

before, you are legally qualified; you know the

problems of different proceedings commenced under

different headings and the necessity for the material

to be available. The Court is not in a position to

rummage through files to find a series of documents

which you choose to put upon a series of files. Now,

if you want to say anything about the material that

is on these two files with respect to these two

matters you may go ahead and do so.

CITIZEN LIMBO: I am actually not familiar with the problems. I

may be legally qualified but when you say I am

far:tiliar with the problems of referring to documents
in different matters I am not quite sure what you are
referring to there because I did refer to that matter

anda specific affidavit in an affidavit in this matter.

My legal qualifications, as Your Honour knows, do not extend that

far in terms of the usual level of experience that appears before

you.

C3T2/2/DR	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

HIS HONOUR:  I do not know about the experience. I

understand you are on the register of this Court.

Is that right?

CITIZEN LI:MBO: Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:	As a practitioner?
CITIZEN LI:MBO:	Yes, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	And it is expected by this Court that those

who are on its register will be familiar with

its practices so that they can perform their

professional duties.

CITIZEN LI:MBO:  Yes, sir. The question in this matter is,

am I acting professionally. That is a real

question in this matter and I think in the wake

of STREET it might be something that the Court

needs to look at, such as unresolved question

from STREET's case. So - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

The first application is an application for

extension of time in relation to the filing of
a notice of application for special leave to appeal

and to be relieved from the requirement to pay the

filing fee.

CITIZEN LI:MBO: 

Yes, sir, and the point - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

Now, on the last occasion that matter was

adjourned in order, amongst other things, that

you could serve the respondent. Have you done so?

CITIZEN LIMBO:	Yes, sir, and if I may take you - - -
HIS HONOUR:	I will see if there is any appearance for the

respondent.

MR T.J. RILEY, QC:  May I announce my appearance, with my

learned friend, MR G. CLIFT, on behalf of the

respondent in that particular matter, Your Honour.

(instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Riley.
MR RILEY:	We do not have instructions in relation to the other matter that Your Honour is now discussing.
HIS HONOUR:	No.
MR RILEY:	We have received the documents and we are here,
although they have not been served in any formal sense.
C3T3/l/CM	3
Limbo(3)	(Continued on page 3A)

HIS HONOUR: Well, do you take any point upon them?

MR RILEY:  We do not take any points, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Very well. Well I will hear what Citizen Limbo

has to say.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Thank you, sir. There was another matter

hanging from our last session, which was precisely

which summons we were proceeding on. Your Honour

will remember that I had raised the question that

I had intended to proceed on the first surrrrnons,

which had been, I think, attempted to be lodged

in this Court on the 14 December, and that was a

summons - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Riley, do you happen to have two surrrrnonses or

one?

(Continued on page 4 )

C3T3/2/CM	30/5/90
Limbo(3)
MR RILEY:	We have a sealed summons - we have one sealed

summons - we have, in fact, three summonses,

Your Honour, but they all appear to be in this same matter and say roughly the same thing; that is in seeking the extension of time.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you have any objection to Citizen Limbo

referring to all three?

MR RILEY:  I do not know what is being sought, Your Honour,

and whether it is against anybody who might be

represented by myself, or at least those

instructine me.

HIS HONOUR: Well, we will see what the applications are

and then if you have any objection to the

applications as made as being not made with

sufficient notice to you, you shall say so.

MR RILEY:  Perhaps I could be provided now with a copy of the

applications, Your Honour, so that I can see what

it is that we are talking about. Yes, Your Honour,

that is a surrnnons relating to acceptance of

reverse charge telephone calls, and the like.	I
have no objection to that being heard, no,
Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

CITIZEN LIMBO: Firstly, sir, we might shorten matters

if the other side want to indicate whether they

are taking any argument on either of those

applications. I do not know whether either of

the applications - - -

HIS HONOUR:  You are at liberty to make that application if

that is the application you seek to make.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes, sir. Well, excuse me for a moment.

Sir, the other side does not want to be heard on

the waiver of fee question, but they still oppose

everything. So both the applications are

opposed. The other side only seeks to be heard

on the extension of time matter.

(Continued on page 5)

C3T4/1/FK 4 RILEY 30/5/90

Limbo(3)	CITIZEN LIMBO
CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing):	Has Your Honour had a chance to

read the documents in this matter?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Well then I will just very briefly for perhaps

a couple of sentences open the matters to you. If then you will see that the three questions that we

are seeking to ask in the appeal are firstly, does

the nuclear targeting of civilian populations

attract any civil or criminal liability in Australia;

secondly, who is responsible and, if so, when to

whom, for enforcing the law against the nuclear

targeting of civilian populations in Australia - we

suggest crimes like conspiracy and complicity in

attempted murder - and; thirdly, what actions can

ordinary citizens take effectively to stop or prevent

serious crimes in Australia?

So those, Your Honour will see, are the three questions that are raised in summary and

specifically this question of individual responsibility;

to what extent is every citizen in Australia

individually responsible to stop or prevent serious

crimes legally, and many matters are traversed in
the appeal documents, but Your Honour will see that

we are talking about war crimes and crimes against

peace and humanity. Not that we rely on the

international law argument in order to succeed - it

but since we are talking and referring

is one way of getting there. We say under ordinary carried out,

to the internationally agreed standard of what crimes

against peace and humanity and war crimes are,

we have also sought to intervene in the POLYUKHOVICH

V COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND THE DPP matter in

order to make certain submissions because, although

we support the government's position that the Act

is valid, we adopt different reasonings to get there

and there are several different legal reasonings to

reach the same result.

Now, turning specifically to the application.

If Your Honour accepts that these are serious matters

that have not come before this Court before and are

very relevant to other matters in this Court and

that there are unanswered questions to do with the

administration of justice and the law in Australia

generally that have been raised by this litigation,

then Your Honour should have no trouble in finding

some way for this matter to be heard before you.

There are other matters coming to this Court - and I

should tell you this, sir, because the Full Federal to do with a civil matter, raising the same

questions - - -

C3T5/1/HS	5	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

HIS HONOUR:  If you can confine yourself to these applications,

it woula be helpful.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes, sir, but the point that I am making

by opening in this way to you is that all

these matters are interrelated; they all raise the

same questions and we have raised them as a defence

to criminal matters - that is this case before you;

as a civil action - that is the Full Federal Court

injunction case; as a constitutional matter in the

POLYUKHO'1[CH thing; and administratively - and that

is the second matter before you this morning, the

action against the Attorney-General and the DPP

and we are saying the government ought support

by providing legal aid and other resources this

inquiry in the same way as they have su~ported the

POLYUKHOVICH plaintiff.

I handed to your associate and to the other

sides, a list of authorities which I would -

well, I have headed it, a 1 is t of recent relevant cases in

this Court and the judgments and tone of the court

in AUSTRALIAN IRON V STEEL and particularly the
Chief Justice in JAGO's case, I rely on the tone

and the reasoning in those cases - particularly the

Chief Justice in JAGO's case and his discussion of

the inherent power of courts to prevent abuses of

their process and to take certain actions

concerning apprehensions and unfairness.

I also, sir, cite to you a case you would

be very familiar with, which is STREET's case,

concerning the immunities and privileges of

section 117 because in that decision of the court,

the court looked at, as it were, what constitutional

protections were given and, I think, it was

Mr Justice - one of which, sir, was section 117 and what I am saying briefly is that there is a global

''Human Rights Standards" and that the very same

reasoning that is used to support a vibrant life

for section 117, so far ignored generally in the

history of the Court, but the approach taken in that

case and the approach taken to discrimination and

equal opportunity in the IRON V STEEL case, I say, are

indicators that the Full Court of this Court would

have answers to those three questions I raised to

you at the beginning.

(Continued on page 7)

C3T6/l/JH	6	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing):  I also handed to your associate,

sir, and to the other side a one page document

called Chronology of Law in Australia and if - - -

HIS HONOUR:  There is a problem that you do not seem to be

addressing, that is the extension of time in which to file an application for special leave to appeal

and that thus far has escaped your submissions.

CITIZEN LIMBO: Sir, I thought that the practice seemed to be

in this Court that you must talk about the substance

of your matter as well as the procedural aspect

on which you are here,and so I was opening that

aspect to you.

HIS HONOUR: Well, there is certainly a question as to whether

or not the - - -

CITIZEN LIMBO: Prospects of success.

HIS HONOUR:  The application has any prospects of success if

it were to proceed.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  That is righ4 and that to me is the substantial

question before you. If you wish me to turn to the

procedural details, sir, you will see that the - - -

HIS HONOUR:  You deal with the matter as you see fit but I just

do not want you to wander off the relevant point

in this case.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Sir, so far I have mentioned several

cases of this Court to you, clearly a relevant

matter;	I have mentioned other pleadings in this
Court to you, clearly a relevant matter;	I have
mentioned other cases around the country;	I have

mentioned the Full Federal Court one, there is a

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory case looming

to do with the Prime Minister trying to have a summons

in this very case lifted, sir and there are various

magistrates' courts matters and I have listed all the

current litigation I say is relevant to the issues
in this case in the affidavit in support of

the ex parte summons in the second matter to serve

the Attorney-General and the DPP. So that there is a list

of matters which I am basically asking the Attorney-Genera]

to consolidate and remove to this Court, because they

all involve these same three questions which I raised

to you the questions of: nuclear targetir\~ of civilian populations; is it civilly or criminally an offence in Australia; secondly, who is responsible for enforcing

it: and thirdly, what ordinary actions can citizens

take and that whole general question of individual

responsibility to stop and prevent serious crimes,

are all raised in these matters.

C3T7/l/JL	7	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing):  I am not sure if I can take

Your Honour to the paragraphs in that affidavit

that I am referring to at the moment or if

Your Honour has had a chance to peruse them, you

will have seen those matters listed there.

So, I conclude my general remar~s by saying that

this case raises very important questions about the

iudicial power, the functions and duties of the

iudicial branch of government as opposed to the executive or legislative branches of government

and, once again, I have mentioned the illuminating

iudgment of the Chief Justice in JAGO's case and

other iudges there. It rq£ses oucstions of the

abuses of power by the legislature and by Lhe
executive and to take a specific example, there is
the question of the secret agreement signed about

these American bases in Australia, never legislatively

authorized; is that legislation binding on Australian

citizens under ordinary law? Clearly, the answer is

no and then, on the other end of the scale, we have

legislative heads of power, military and naval defence,

foreign affairs, which we say the argument is, since

the fifties, since the United Nations and the legislative

code of adoption by Australia of UN matters, we sav

that now there is a limit on legislative power for

military and defence and for foreign affairs not to infringe internationally agreed human rights'

standards, at least the ones to which Australia is

a signatory and it is an argument not about what

laws bind citizens but it is argument about the

Commonwealth being bound extraterritorially as

opposed intraterritorially. If the Commonwealth

signs an agreement not to do something with the UN
then, clearly, we say, it must apply the same

standard to its citizens.

Citizens may not be able to take any legal action

to enforce that particular standard but that is the

argument and I think Your Honour can sec t~2t ~~et

military and naval defence powers before but it is	come before you on foreign affairs' matters and on is an argument different to the arguments that have
an argument which is open, I say, particularly given
the recent trend of this Court's iudgments and approaches to dismantling the legalistic approach to interpretation; that the overrulling of HENRY V BOEHM, for example, and also the Court's attempt
to find a national identity for Australians
reflected in the iudgments I have referred to.
Section 117 is quite clear about having one Australia,
one people, and because you are the iudicial power of
the Commonwealth, a iudicial branch of the government,
there arc certain matters that flow into the whole
iudicial arena at everv level connected with human
rights' matters and the rights of citizens to take

C3T8/l /SH 8 CITIZEN LIMBO 30/5/90

Limbo(3) (Continued on page SA)

actions in courts to enforce human rights' matters

and there is a question there, of course, as to

this term "domestic law" which, I understand, is

not a legislative term; it is a iudicial term and

so we have a question about the importation into

domestic law of these standards and the reason that

this Court must deal with this is because these

questions are coming to the Court in four different

ways; they are coming to the Court in this particular

matter, as a defence to a criminal charge. They are

coming to the Court in a civil matter where we have

taken an injunction, a negligence against the

Prime Minister and Defence Minister, to stop these

bases. They are coming to you constitutionally in

the intervention in POLYUKHOVICH, and they are

coming to you administratively in the action

against the Attorney-General.

(Continued on page 9)

C3T8/2/SH	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing): My argument here, I suppose, is

in order for the most efficient disposal of this
question, in dealing with this question, the question

which every court is going to have to come to grips

with now and in the future, and this Court is

already quite used to citing overseas authorities -

it cites US Supreme Court authorities; it cites

superior courts in India, Canada and so on - clearly
what we are saying is it is time for this Court to

make a decision which can be cited in those courts

so we have a decision which is both national and

domestic but it also can be cited with some

authority in other jurisdictions which have a

similar legal system based on parliamentary

democracy and a separation of powers. And, as I

have told Your Honour, those matters to which I

refer are all listed in the affidavits before you
as is the current litigation in almost every State

in this country involving these issues - Tasmania,

South Australia, Victoria, Northern Territory. I

am not sure what is happening in New South Wales.

At magistrates courts levels there are prosecutions for trivial offences at these particular military installations here and the argument, as Your Honour

will have heard, is that they are doing their

duty as citizens to try and stop and prevent and

by making a minor infraction of the law they are

entitled to a fair trial in a public court where

they can call evidence in their defence to prove

the very things that they are saying.

So if Your Honour takes seriously the

allegation supported in the Federal Court case by

10 different experts - ecologists, scientists,

nuclear strategists - every kind of expert that

you would need for advice on evidence to prove

these things, we will be making allegations of

war crimes being committed right now by the

targeting of civilian populations by nuclear

weapons, supported on evidence and with a great
deal of legal support for the point.	The other

side will know because they sat through five

days of this in the Full Court in the Northern

Territory, that there is a lot of authority

arguing that nuclear weapons are illegal under

international and under domestic law.

So it is a legitimate point. The legal

literature goes back 20 or 30 or 40 years and the

factual evidence is up to date.	We have affidavits
from, as I have said, these experts.	Where we are

making serious allegations about war crimes being

committed surely the Court has a duty to say,

"Good heavens, not in 1990, not in Australia.	We
must use the full extent of our judicial power.	We
have a	duty to explore these allegations".

C3T9/l/LW	9	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing):  In JAGO's case, the limitations

of what the Court could do were spelt out but also the powers of what the Court could do - and there

was some dispute as to whether it was called inherent power or power implied from various

statutory provisions - that was a real question

in JAGO's case and I say this particular case

requires the amplification of points that were

left unsettled in that case.

Sir, as you read the documents, you will have

seen the history of the lodgment of this particular

document, you will have seen that within 21 days

the other side were served or had a copy, if you

like, of the ex parte summons No 1, the affidavit

to that, the application for special leave and

the affidavit in support of that. These documents

are all some something that were had by the

Australian Government Solicitor in December.

The Australian Government Solicitor, also

about that time, in Adelaide, received a judgment

from Justice O'Loughlin futhe civil matter and

shortly thereafter, within six or seven days,

received appeal notices drafted by me as well making

these same points.

The Australian Government Solicitor on

1 January, or shortly thereafter, had a copy of an opinion, counsel's opinion, some 20 pages in

detail,addressing these issues and shortly thereafter

that the Prime Minister took out an originating

summons in the Northern Territory Supreme Court

to have his subpoena, which was properly served

on him in Alice Springs in April 1989, lifted and

have it dismissed for being an abuse of process.

We keep coming back to this abuse of process

bottle-neck in this matter. So I say that as regards

the procedural requirements, that since the other

side had copies of the documents which I was seeking	to file in this Court well within the 21 day period,
there can be no time point taken. But I go further
than that and I show the sorry saga of what exactly happened after the 21 day period in relation to
these documents.

(Continued on page 11)

C3T10/1/ND	10	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing):  I have already mentioned

section 117 to you, Your Honour, but here we

have a High Court rule basically discriminating

because one is in one of two different territories

and although section 117 refers to States, I think

that one can deduce from the judgments in the

STREET, and although some judges specifically

excluded considering the question of whether it

would apply to legislative and executive acts -

I think that was the term - there is, as you can

see, some constitutional question about whether

someone in Alice Springs, being required by a

rule of Court to file his documents in the

registry nearest the cause of action, is somehow

prejudiced if he cannot actually lodge them in

registry for various matters, and the particular

facts of why I wish to lodge them in registry, rather

than in the Northern Territory office of the High Court

Registry is: one, because of the attitude of the

master in refusing to allow me access to the law

library and, secondly, refusing to allow me access

to justice - access to him - to argue his decision,

you know, as is mentioned in STREET's case.	The
cou~t can certainly look at matters within it

own area, so I say that was an appealable matter

within the jurisdiction of the masters.

So that is my fir§t ground for not wishing to send them to Darwin. The second ground is that I

was moving to Melbourne - either to Melbourne or

Sydney - this year and the Canberra Registry would be the closest registry, and also it seemed there were other matters, as has now become fact, which

were going to bring me to the High Court, because only the High Court can resolve these matters, as

we have seen by the way they have been handled in

different ways by every magistrate and judge they

have come before. And, to continue that saga, sir,

I received a letter back from the High Court

Registry, by the Deputy Registrar, who knew who

I was, because I had been here in November, saying

that they would not accept documents by post.

That was the provision relied on - the fact that

documents would not be forwarded at this registry

by post. So I then sought to physically appear

in this registry and lodge those documents,
where I was told by the Registrar that that could
not be done; it had to be done in Darwin, even
though I was physically there with the documents.

I was known to him because he had been in Court in the November hearing and I had had previous dealings with him about trying to get these matters to the

High Court, which I have been trying to do, sir, since 1988, and that is documented.

I asked the Northern Territory Chief Justice to

refer these matters to the Full Court in September of

1988, and I have sought to bring these matters before

this Court in Septerrber of last year and the Registrar refused to

provide a judge to hear an injunction application.

C3Tll/l/FK	11	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing):  So, the Registrar well knew that

these issues were seeking to be brought before this

Court and his argument, last September, as to why it could not come before a judge was because, "You know, everyone is disarming their nuclear weapons;

there are new arms agreements; we do not need to

hear this case". His argument, this time, as to

why he would not accept documents by post was because

"If we let you do it all the crims would be writing

in" and I have dealt in my affidavit with why there

are points of distinction from "every crim writing in".

This is the 1990s where faxes are routinely used

and it seems to me that in all the circumstances

Your Honour can see that there is a hardship.

Finally, there is the question of whether I

could have lodged these documents in Alice Springs.

I do not know the answer to that. I have an

unanswered question to the Deputy Master Quinn,

from March asking whether it would be possible to,

in fact, lodge documents in Alice Springs to be

the affidavit, and particularly exhibit B therein which, I say, lists all the key exhibits.

transferred on to the Darwin office of the registry. in

It lists an affidavit from a reader in law at the

University of Adelaide; one page affidavit showing

clearly that nuclear weapons are illegal; it lists
the declarations of the International Association

of r~wyers Against Nuclear Arms showing that nuclear

weapons are illegal; it lists an article by

Robert Burrows listing 14 international treaties

and 35 articles of international law showing that

nuclear weapons are illegal; and it excerpts from
the statement of claim in the Federal Court matter -

the civil matter - the topics which I say this matter

raises; and it also exhibits a section from this

Northern Territory Full Court judgment before you.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you wish to say anything about your second

application?

CITIZEN LIMBO:	Yes, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	I am speaking now of the application in the case

which was desired to be commenced between yourself

as plaintiff and the Attorney-General, Government

Solicitor and Director of Public Prosecutions.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes, sir. This is an application to issue a

writ possibly, I would imagine, with an amended and

expanded statement of claim but clearly the thrust

on the last page of the writ document is that the

Attorney-General, the Government Solicitor and the

DPP havenegligently and recklessly breached a duty

of care owed to me as either a person - human

rights; a citizen - Australian law; an accused

citizen; a litigant in person; a legally qualified -

your terms - public interest advocate - which is

C3Tl2/l/DR	12	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

what I say I am at the moment; an officer of this

Court- we have mentioned that; a human rights'

defender- and I refer to the international convention,

the draft convention on human rights' offenders to

which Australia is a party; and a member of

community groups for peace and social iusticc and

I also say, Your Honour, trustee for future

generations in the environment. I say that,

for all those reasons, there is a duty of care

owed to me by the Attorney-General who well knows

that I am alleging contemporary and continuing war

crimes and evidence thereof and seeking to enforce

Australian law to stop and prevent such crimes; that

the Attorney-General has negligently and recklessly

breached a	duty of care owed to someone in that
position.

In the affidavit, Your Honour, I take you through

paragraph 1, I refer to affidavits in this Court;

paragraph 2, I take you through a chronological

summary of the litigation re contemporary war crimes.

I start with the Pine Gap protest. I take

Your Honour through the preliminary defence applications, through various citizens' law enforcement actions one of

which came before this Court and is now reported in

46 ALJR 241 and now called RE LIMBO and Bobby Myer

was, as you remember, Your Honour, a plaintiff in

that matter, and I take you through

the further appeals and applications, the intervention of the WAR CRIMES ACT and then, to this administrative

action and I say, hopefully, we can avoid further

administrative actions against the Ombudsman and

the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioners.

I, then, in paragraph 3 outline the four areas of

law.

HIS HONOUR:  I have read this affidavit.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  You have? Thank you, Your Honour. Well, then,

I have no more to say if you have read this document

in this matter. Either Your Honour and this Court

takes these matters seriously and sees that there

is a role, in fact, a duty for a judge and a court

to act in this matter or you do not, but given the -

I will not repeat what I said.	Thank you,
Your Honour.

(CoDtinued on page 14)

C3Tl2/2/SH	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limho 1 3)

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Riley, you do not wish to be heard on the

question of relieving the applicant from the

filing fee, I gather?

MR RILEY:	No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	You are concerned only with the question of

extension of time?

MR RILEY:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, and what is your attitude to that?
MR RILEY:	We oppose the application, Your Honour, on four bases, the most mundane of which is that at no
stage has the applicant provided the Cou~t with reasons for the delay between 27 November 1989
and 20 March 1990 when this application was made.
In fact, as I have said to Your Honour earlier, although we do not take the point, the documents have
not yet been served.

The other matters, Your Honour, are that

the applicant is using these proceedings for an

ulterior purpose. That has become fairly clear

from what has been said this morning and what has

been said before Your Honour on other occasions and

is freely admitted in the affidavit material before

you and I will take Your Honour to that if

Your Honour should think it necessary. The matters raised in this application are an abuse of process;

they not being related to any legitimate defence

open to the applicant arising out of what we really

are here all about and that is the prosecution of a trespass offence in Alice Springs some time ago.

The other two grounds on which we would resist

the application, Your Honour, is that there is no

merit in the proposed substantive appeal and a

second leg of that, that this Court would not, in

any event, grant special leave even if Your Honour

was inclined to extend the time, so we sav the
merits are such that the application should not be

granted.

Those are the four bases, if Your Honour

wishes me to address those in any detail.

HIS HONOUR:	No.
MR RILEY:	Those are the matters, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Do you have anything to say in reply, Citizen Limbo?
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Strictly, it might be in reply, sir, but

I realized on sitting down, one thing I had forgotten

to take Your Honour to was another document I handed

C3Tl3/l/JH 14 30/5/90

Limbo(3) CITIZEN LIMBO

to your associate which was a chronology. It is

a self-evident document but basically it is to

assist the Court in taking a broad view of legal

history which is what you are making every day

and, basically, it is saying that there is a first
legal system, 60,000 years of indigenous law;

there is a second legal system from 1788, first

contact, which imported - and I mentioned the

Assize of Clarendon, the Magna Carta and Blackstone's

commentaries. Then there was 1901 when the

Commonwealth of Australia was formed and then I say there is a third legal system since 1950 and I

instance the United Nations charter signing,the
citizenship for all Australians in 1967, the

constitutional crisis in 1975 and the current world

law or global common law situation which I think we

are moving to.

So having said that, my final comment, sir, is

that if a Queen's Counsel is suggesting that an

ulterior motive of this litigation being brought to

this Court is the prevention of war crimes and

preventing this kind of thing ever happening again

then I certainly say that is not an ulterior motive,
that is the motive, the only major legal motive

concerning us this morning.

HIS HONOUR:  I need not trouble you on those points, Mr Riley.

-The first of the applications before me this

morning is an application for an extension of time

in which the applicant seeks to file a notice of

application for special leave to appeal to this

Court from a judgement of the Court of Appeal of

the Northern Territory and to be relieved from the

filing fee which would be appropriate to be exacted

on the filing of such a document. Every court which

is faced with an application made by a litigant in

person on a matter which is of importance to that

litigant is concerned, of course, to ensure that

there is no point of substance, that is to say of

legal substance, which is overlooked in what is

oftentimes a farrago of irrelevant material. That

can certainly be said in this case.

At the same time, especially in this Court,

it is important that no court's process should be

misued by the deluging of the court's files with
material that is quite irrelevant to any legal
question so that, if there be any point of substance

or merit in the application, it is likely to be

inundated by the mass of material that is thus

offered. This is such a case.

If there be some point of legal merit in this

mass of material which Citizien Limbo has chosen to

C3Tl3/2/LW	15	CITIZEN LIMBO	30/5/90
Limbo(3)

put upon the record - and in the submissions which

he has made - he has, so far as I am concerned,

succeeded in concealing it. It may be that his

understanding of the legal process is quite different

from mine but, however that may be, I am unable to

determine that there is any scintilla of legal merit

in the application which he seeks to make.

The same might be said with respect to his

second application. That is an application in which

he seeks to bring process in this Court against the

Attorney-General of Australia, the Australian

Government Solicitor and the Director of Public

Prosecutions.

The causes to which he has referred in the

course of his submission this morning may be

important causes but, before this Court's jurisdiction

can be invoked, it is necessary that some question

of legal principle should be addressed. As I am

unable to detect any question of legal principle in

either of these applications, I propose to refuse

them.

The applications to be relieved from the filing

fee in both cases are refused and the application
for an extension of time in which to file the

application for special leave to appeal from the

Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory is

refused.

Tl4 MR RILEY: I seek an order for costs, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you have anything to say about the order for

costs, Mr Limbo.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I think it is apparent from my affidavit, sir,

my low income status and I say I am acting in the

public interest and I say I have a duty to do it.

Perhaps it could be reserved, sir. I mean, obviously

you would say the costs follow the event, but my

submission to you would be that the question of

notice of motion and seeing whether the Full Court	costs ought be reserved pending the filing of a
wishes to hear an appeal in this matter. That is
up to you.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I do not propose to reserve the question of

costs. If an application of this kind is put

upon the Court's files and the other party is

put to expense in meeting it, I see no reason why

the order should not be made.	The order for costs
will follow the event.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Thank you. If it please Your Honour.

AT 10.03 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

C3Tl5/l/CM	16	30/5/90
Limbo(3)