Citizen Limbo v Officer

[1990] HCATrans 56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry

B e t w e e n -

CITIZEN LIMBO

Applicant

and

OFFICER LITTLE

Respondent

Application for waiver of fees and

application for extension of time

to lodge application for special

leave to appeal

BRENNAN J

(In Chambers)

Limbo (2)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 4 APRIL 1990, AT 9.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

C3Tl/l/RB 1 4/4/90

MR LIMBO:	Sir, I appear in person on this matter.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Limbo.
MR LIMBO:	Sir, could I be addressed as citizen - to be non

gender specific, could I be addressed as citizen,

rather than Mr, sir? I think that is now an option

in government policy to be termed citizen rather than

Mr or Miss.

HIS HONOUR:  Is citizen the title of some sort?

MR LIMBO:  No, sir, it is in a same way as Mr or Miss. It is

now adopted as government policy, I understand,and

it has been since last year that you can be titled

citizen rather than Mr or Miss.

HIS HONOUR:	I see. Yes, very well.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Thank you, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	Well now, what do you have to say?
CITIZEN LIMBO:	I have a lot to say, as usual, but I will try

and keep it brief.

I do not know which summons you have before

you, whether you have the original ex parte summons

of two pages or a one page summons.

HIS HONOUR:  There is an ex parte summons here which is seeking

orders that the Court fees in the matter be waived

or postponed until after final judgment and the time

for lodging the application for special leave be

extended.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes, sir. There was a summons before that

which was refused for acceptance by the Registrar on

the basis that, according to the Registrar, the

Court had no power to grant the orders I was seeking

and faced with having to take out a writ of mandamus

.to make the Registrar receive the summons, I thought	it expedient to comply with his requests. If I
could now hand up to you, sir, the summons that I
attempted.

(Continued on page 3)

C3Tl/l/JH	2	CITIZEN LIMBO .	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

HIS HONOUR:	What application are you now making?
CITIZEN LIMBO:	I am making an application for extension

of time and waiver of fees.

HIS HONOUR:  That is in the form of the summons that I have

just mentioned, is that right?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes, sir, but the applications I wish to make

to you are embodied in the summons that I attempted

to first lodge on 15 December 1989.

HIS HONOUR: Citizen Limbo, I just wish to know what

application you wish now to make.	What application
are you making?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I am making an application to waive fees

and extend time but, in this summons which I am

attempting to hand up, sir, you will see I have

also asked that the matter be heard by video link

rather than me as an indigent person travelling

to Canberra and I have asked that I be allowed
access to the Court library and various other
matters of th8t kind and, in my view, the Court

certainly has inherent power to grant those orders and since it is an ex parte matter I wish to - you

will hear more in a few minutes, sir, about the

Registrar's activities in relation to this matter

and another matter and - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I do not propose to sit to listen to a speech.

I am going to listen to an application. You have

told me that you have made an application in the

terms of the ex parte summons which was 23 March 1990.

You have also told me that you have sought to make

another application by summons.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, those are two separate matters. Which one

do you wish to proceed on?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I wish to proceed on both, sir, since in my

original - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I do not propose to hear both at the same time.

Which do you prefer to proceed on first?

(Continued on page 4)

C3T2/1 /SH	3	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO:  May I ask Your Honour if you have read the documents

in this matter?

HIS HONOUR:	I have not read the documents in the matter.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	I understood that the documents were being made

available to you last Wednesday to peruse before this
application.

HIS HONOUR:  No doubt the documents are here and available.

You are at liberty to read whichever documents you

wish and to make whatever submission you wish to make.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I would have thought that in making this

application for the Judge to deal with it would have
been, in the words of the Registrar's letter to me,
essential for Your Honour to have read the draft

notice of appeal, the application for leave and the

ex parte sununons and the affidavit accompanying that

which were on the court file.

HIS HONOUR: Well, it will not take a moment to do that.

CITIZEN LIMBO:	Thank you, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	But I wish to know which application you are making.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Yes, sir. That is why I ask if you have read the documents because you will see that what I am
talking about in this matter is serious breaches of
the law by government officers.  I know you do not want
to hear a speech, ir. My submission is that I have
been denied legal aid and there is a serious conflict of interest in these matters inasmuch as the Attorney-General is acting for these officers and
that one of the Conunonwealth officers of whose
actions I complain  is the Registrar and I have
an affidavit here which is handwritten and
unphotocopied, in which I detail those matters, and
I am prohibited by sheer basic economics from
presenting this case to you properly. Your Honour
saw me last year appearing before you on another
matter and I raised then the question of legal aid
with Your Honour and your basic attitude was,
''Well, that is a very important issue. It does deny people access but it is something that you should have explored elsewhere", and one of the things I wish
to say to you this morning as a judicial officer of
the Conunonwealth, as opposed to an executive or legislative officer, is that there is a serious problem
here with legal aid, sir.  I know you do not want to
here this because you think it is a speech but, I mean,
unfortunately, I have actually come here seeking justice this morning, sir, and I come here as a legally trained
person with some experience in the matter.

C3T3/l/LW	4	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing): In my.view there is a miscarriage

of justice which yc•tl, cH.: a , . .Tl:dge as a judicial

officer have judicial power to, I would say,

intervene on but certainly connnent on.

HIS HONOUR: Citizen Limbo, in order to abbreviate these

proceedings as much as possible I will ask you

now to tell me what documents you wish to bring

to my attention in order that you can make whatever

submission you wish to make and any relief that you

wish to obtain. Just tell me what documents you are

referring to?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I refer to the affidavit of myself dated

13 December 1989 - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Now, just a moment until I find them one by

one. We have got, first of all, the ex parte

sunnnons which seeks the waiving of court fees - - -

CITIZEN LIMBO:	Which was filed on Wednesday, 28th of - - -
HIS HONOUR:	And the time for lodging the application for

special leave to be extended, is that right?

CITIZEN LIMBO: That is right, sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Now what documents support that sunnnons?

CITIZEN LIMBO: Right. There is an affidavit by me dated

13 December 1989 - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	- - - which contains as an introduction some

paragraphs about the nature of the action, the

prospect of success and the question of means and

it has four exhibits. There is -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, and what are the exhibits?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  The exhibits sir, are - should be attached and

they concern my attempts to use the supreme court

library and my attempts to bring the matter before

the master in order to do that. The next document,

sir, is the application, special leave to appeal,

dated 13 December 1989.

HIS HONOUR: That is a separate document, is it, that you filed?
CITIZEN LIMBO: Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, yes I have that.

C3T4/l/JL	5	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO:  It is backsheeted "Affidavit of" - myself -

(Special Leave to Appeal, 13/12/89) which contains

an introduction; a concise statement of the factual

circumstances; a concise statement of the grounds
of challenge; specific questions of law and statements

to why they are sufficiently important; why the

judgment below was wrong and other reasons why leave

should be granted with a list of exhibits. Sir, the

exhibit I particularly draw your attention to is the

draft notice of appeal which is exhibit 8D to the

affidavit. Once again this is an exhibit dated

13 December 1989.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	And those are the documents which I had assumed Your Honour would have had a chance to peruse
before this application as was indicated by the Registrar's letter to me dated Wednesday of last
week.
HIS HONOUR:	What other documents?
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Those are the documents.

HIS HONOUR: Those are the documents. Yes, I see. All right,

now what application do you now wish to make? You
may make whatever application you wish based upon

any or all of those documents.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Thank you, sir. Well, if I could now draw

Your Honour's attention to the summons. If I may say by way of introduction, those documents were

all lodged by post at this Registry on or about

14 December 1989, certainly within the 21 day
time limit specified by the Rules. The su.nm1ons
that was lodged with those documents, air, if I
may now hand up to you, and you will see how it

differs from the summons before you. If I might just -

perhaps I will just briefly explain those, sir.

I attempted to lodge these documents by post

because I claimed bias, both judicial and within the
sy~tem of court offica:s in Darwin.	This was rejected

on the grounds that they would not accept documents

by post. I then attended personally at the Registry

here and attempted to lodge documents and I was

refused on the basis that I had to put them in Darwin.

I then attempted to lodge them in Darwin and the

master refused to accept them and his basic reason

was because this summons sought things that the

court did not have power to grant and his attitude

was that if I wished to challenge that I would have

to take a writ of mandamus against a registrar,

which I am not sure is correct advice. It is one

of the matters I wish to raise with you this morning.

C3T5/l/DR	6	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO·(continuing):  So this summons, you will see,

sir, differs not substantially in substance from

the one before you but it does seek certain orders

and it particularly draws the Court's attention

to the fact that legal aid applications have

been made and that - it is only a page and a

half, perhaps if Your Honour could peruse it.

HIS HONOUR: This is the ex parte summons?

CITIZEN LIMBO:	This is the ex parte summons that was lodged.
HIS HONOUR:	Would you have a look at this document which

seems to be in the file here. I do not know

whether that is the document which you sought

to lodge. Would you show tihat to· Citizen Limbo?

CITIZEN LIMBO:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	Is that the document?
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Yes, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	So, if I read this this tells me what it is

that you wish to say.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Could I have my copy back please, that

is my only copy?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

CITIZEN LIMBO: If I may put this application in context,

at the moment there are three cases before this

Court and there are two or three more coming

which concern these issues. Your Honour is familiar

with the "stop arms for export" campaign and

the attempt to ply United Nations conventions

directly in. Australiai There is this matter

which concerns a defence to a charge of trespass

and raises things like the Nuremberg principles
and the operation of the ordinary criminal law

in relation to serious crimes.

The other side of the coin is a matter that is in the Full Federal Court on appeal at the

moment and will no doubt be coming to this Court

which is - rather than defending the charge to

trespass to raise these issues we have taken

out an action in negligence with an injunction to close, in these case, the nuclear targeting bases and there is the WAR CRIMES ACT constitutional

challenge happening in late May in which we are

seeking to intervene.

Once again, we argue that not only is the

WAR CRIMES ACT valid but that you do not need

C3T6/l /ND 7 CITIZEN LIMBO· 4/4/90

Limbo(2) (Continued on page 7A)

particular international treaties specifically

for that in the circumstances and we rely on

the operation of the ordinary criminal law of

Australia. As Your Honour remarked when I was

last before, you gave an example of the laws

against genocide are protected by the operation

of the ordinary criminal law and, of course,

we say that may be so but there are certain

deficiencies in the operation of the criminal

law and the administration of justice.

(Continued on page 8)

C3T6/2/ND	CITIZEN LIMBO:	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO:  So those are the cases. Those three cases

are before this Court, I say.	The Federal Court
one is coming and there are two more to come.	One

is an administrative action against the Attorney-General,

the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission and

police and basic prosecutory devices saying, "Whose

responsibility is it to in fact investigate and

prosecute serious breaches of the law, eg,

attempted murder, terrorism, poisoning oE the

environment'?" And the final one, sir, is an application,

once again administrative, against the Attorney-General

in relation to legal aid. The Attorney-General runs

a reporting service; runs an office of legal aid

administration and a war crimes investigation unit

and a human rights section, and we say that between

the four of those assistance ought be provided in

cases where crimes against peace and humanity,as

defined by the United Nations, are alleged with

supporting material.

Sir, the other documents which I attempted to

lodge at this Registry on or about 14 December 1989,

were the 13 expert affidavits filed in the Federal

Court matter, the injunction matter I spoke about

which included expert testimony by a physicist, a

medical practitioner, a strategic defence expert,

four senators, a public radio broadcaster, an activist involved in raising a Hight Court challenge to do with

a peace tax and various other people, and those

affidavits, sir, were also lodged or attempted to be

lodged in the Darwin Registry a couple of weeks ago.

I do not know if Your Honour has those before you as

well. There should be perhaps an inch thick stack

of affidavits on your file.

HIS HONOUR:  No, the documents that you have outlined to me

seem to be the only ones that are here at the moment.

CITIZEN LIMBO: Well, presumably they have been left in the

Darwin Registry. Sir, these documents of which I

speak,and -which are referred' to in my handwritten

affidavit are the documents which were also lodged

at the High Court on or about 14· December 1989. (Continued on page 9)

C3T7/l/CM	8	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO:  The gist of this case has been to try and

present evidence in a court of law under judicial
evidentiary requirements of evidence on oath,
cross-examination and the usual evidentiary
protections, to prove that the US spy bases, or

joint facilities as they are also known, are

involved in the nuclear targetting of civilian

populations in Australia and elsewhere, and we say

that is a crime under Australian law, because it is
terrorism, and conspiracy and complicity in

attempted murder. These are offences well known

to the law. We also say it is a crime under

international law because it contravenes the

Nuremberg principles, which specifically prohibit

indiscriminate slaughter of non-civilians.

••

What I am saying about all these cases, sir, is

that this High Court is now in a position to become

the first supreme court of any nation in the world to actually declare that nuclear weapons are illegal

because they cause terrorism, mass murder and long-

term poisoning of the environment, and the two

questions that arise from that is; first of all, is

there any reason why this Court should not be the

first to do so and, secondly, is there any reason

why Australian citizens cannot freely and publicly

initiate legal actions to stop or prevent serious

crimes; crimes against peace and humanity as defined

by the Nuremberg principles of the United Nations?

I submit, sir, that what I have been doing for

the past 12 months is doing the work of an entire

law firm and I will briefly run through, for

Your Honour, what these documents are that appear on

this bench to demonstrate that and to in some way

throw myself upon the mercy of this Court and say,

"Help, I need a team of lawyers. I need administrative

support". The government has spent three and three-

quarter million dollars on a war crimes investigation

which has produced one prosecution.	So far I have had
to live on the dole, from which I have had to provide

a budget to operate this case, and it has meant

abandoning other career options.

(Continued on page 10)

C3T8/l/FK 9 CITIZEN LIMBO 4/4/90

Limbo(2)
CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing): Basically at the moment, sir,

I say what is to stop me from going back and earning a substantial amount of money as a

private practitioner or a substantial amount

of money as a performance artist and, basically,

I feel as though I have been doing my duty as

a legal practitioner, as an officer of this

Court, to bring these matters before this

Court.

HIS HONOUR: First of all, tell me on what day was the

decision given in the court below against which

you wish to appeal?

CITIZEN LIMBO:	Yes, sir. That is a complicated answer and if you turn to the last page of the draft
notice of appeal, which is paragraph 3, orders
sought, you will see that there are 12 orders
that I am seeking and essentially those are
the matters on which the Full Court was dealing.

To summarize them, sir - - -

HIS HONOUR:  No. I asked you what date?

CITIZEN LIMBO: Sorry. Date, 13 December 1989.

HIS HONOUR:	13 December 1989.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Yes, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	And is the decision of the court in one of the exhibits here?

CITIZEN LIMBO:· Yes, sir. That is exhibit A. It is a

70-page decision.

HIS HONOUR:  It does not seem to be marked but this is

the reasons for judgment.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, this says on the front of it, "delivered

27 November 1989".

CITIZEN LIMBO:  That is correct.

HIS HONOUR: Is that the correct date?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Yes. I mentioned that to you when I was

before you last, sir. I said that I had just

got judgment in a matter which had been handed

to me that morning about the operation of -

I think it was at the point where you told me I had totally misconceived what the Nuremburg principles were about and I said that I had

just received a judgment issued the day before

C3T9/l /SH	10	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

in Darwin. Essentially what this is about,

sir, it is a number of preliminary applications

prior to a retrial for trespass.

The history of the matter is that I was,

along with 200 other people, arrested and charged

with trespass at Pine Gap in October 1987.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	In March 1988 I was tried upon that charge

by magistrate Barritt and found guilty without

being allowed to call any evidence and without

my subpoenaes to Pine Gap personnel being allowed

to stand.

(Continued on page 12)

C3T9/2/SH	1 1	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90	·
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing):  On appeal before Sir William Kearney,

he found that was a complete breach of due process

and that the defendant's fundamental right to call

evidence and present his case had not been allowed.	I
then took out a variety of preliminary applications
to protect my position on a retrial, seeking to
subpoena various people, seeking to have the idea of a public court protected by radio and television
broadcasts and various applications to do witb a poor person's status. These matters then made their way
through various magistrates and supreme court judges
to the Full Court in the course of which Justice Nader
said that he would resign if I could prove that there
were people in high government office committing crimes or war crimes to put it generally.

This matter came before the Full Court, went

for five days; I was opposed by a QC, an instructing

solicitor and a team of supporting staff and the

judgment basically denied all my applications.

One of my basic appeal points is that Justice Martin

ought to have disqualified himself for bias because he

had acted for Pine Gap, having intimately been

involved with them for years, and under the American

Bar Association Judicial Code of Ethics, which I cite

in my appeal documents, he ought to have disqualified

himself.

HIS HONOUR:  When did you seek to lodge a notice of appeal -

application for special leave to appeal?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I sought to lodge it, sir, on Wednesday,

13 December 1989, which is well within the 21 day

period.

HIS HONOUR:	I see, yes.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	And, at the same time, I also served the

respondent, Officer Little, by arranging for an

officer of the Australian Protective Services to

attend at the Alice Springs Public Interest

Advocacy Centre to collect the documents, so that

all the documents that you have before you, sir, were

received by, as it were, the Attorney-General or,

certainly, Officer Little on or about - in fact, to

be precise, it was Thursday, 14 December.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Now, you have chosen to make this application

ex parte.

CITIZEN LIMBO: Well, I debate with you what "choice" means

in this matter but certainly I am here ex parte at

the moment. There is a gentleman, a person, from
the Australian Government Solicitor's office here

who has informed me that he was notified yesterday

afternoon from Darwin that this matter was happening

and I have handed him a sealed copy of the second

summons which is the bald summons simply seeking an

extension of time and a waiver of fees.

C3Tl0/l/JH	12	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo ( 2)

HIS HONOUR: Well, it is the question of the extensio~ of

time that I am concerned about. You see, if

the successful party in the court below has
not received, in accordance with the rules of

Court, the notice of the application for

special leave to appeal, that party whether

it be the Crown or anybody else has a right

to understand that that decision is final.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Certainly.

HIS HONOUR: Until that person's expectation is disappointed

by an extension of time for the lodging of an

application for special leave to appeal, it

is inappropriate to take that right away from

them without giving them some notice.

Now, in those circumstances, it seems to

me to be inappropriate to make an order on your
application for an extension of time without

hearing the party which may be opposed to it

which may, for all I know, wish to oppose the

application or wish to consent to it.

Now, in those circumstances, unless you

can convince me to the contrary, I would not

make an order on an ex parte application

extending the time.

CITIZEN LIMBO: Yes, sir. Well, I say there are

circumstances, Your Honour, in this matter

why it is fair and reasonable that that should occur.

Would you like to hear me on that?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

CITIZEN LIMBO: Right. The first point is that, as I say,

the respondents to this appeal received all

the documents before you, namely, the ex parte

summons for waiver of fees and other matters,

the affidavit supporting that, the draft notice

of appeal, on 14 December 1989, well within

the 21-day period.

The Attorney-General who is, in fact, the

respondent's representative I maintain in this

matter is aware that I am also running this

may well wish to hear, I suppose, why they

case in several different ways, through the

would oppose on a technicality, this application

but I say that they have had notice within the

required time and that there has been no doubt

in their minds about my intention to pursue

that and that the only hiccup in this matter

has been the problem with getting these documents

lodged.

C3T10/2/SH	13	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

CITIZEN LIMBO (continuing): That may be a problem with

the rules but given, sir, the letter that I wrote

to the Registrar accompanying these documents

dated Wednesday, 13 December 1989, and embraced

in its entirety at paragraph 21 of my affidavit

in which I envoked the Nuremberg principles and

sought assistance and postulated that

Registrar Jones was disqualified from dealing
in any way with the matter because of his previous

connnents and dealings in this matter and noted that,

given all the circumstances presently known to me

and given facts which I reasonably suspect from

these circumstances, especially as they are set out

in paragraph 2.6(r) of the notice to do with,

shall we call, secret intelligence, dirty tricks,

and given that as a poor person I intended to

reside in Melbourne next year, I did not think it

would be appropriate to lodge these documents at

the Northern Territory Registry. So given that

that was an accompanying letter which was sent

at the same time as these documents and which was
also part of the documents which were served on the
respondents, they would be quite well aware of my

attempts to lodge in Canberra before lodging in

Darwin.

There are several other matters which I would

like to be heard on. You may say I am making a speech.

I am just trying to demonstrate to Your Honour that

there is now a nest of litigation in this matter

in which I as, basically, a solo practitioner or
legally trained person or citizen, am opposing the
entire staff of the Attorney-General's office which
is basically either a private army of lawyers or

certainly the largest law firm in the country.

The most recent one of which, sir, is an application

by the - - -

HIS HONOUR: Citizen Limbo, I do not propose to go into other

matters. There are two specific questions that arise here. One is the question of dispensing with the fees.	That is something which it is, perhaps, not essential	to hear the respondent on. The question of extension
of time seems to me to be a matter on which I must
hear the respondent before I could consider the order
that would be made.

C3Tll/l/LW	14	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

HIS HONOUR (continuing):  Now, in those circumstances, I

would propose to adjourn the application to give
you an opportunity, if you wish to take it, to

serve the papers upon which you intend to rely

that have been filed in this Court on the respondent,
together with a copy of an order which I would make

today, adjourning the matter to a date which is
convenient on which the matter can be listed again.

Now, what have you to say about that proposed order?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I can see that it is perfectly expected and

sensible and not at all out of - in fact it is

quite proper for you to say what you have said. I

also feel that you do not wish to take an interest

in the problems that I am raising to you about the

presentation of this case and the fact that I have

been working on these matters for 12 months and

am completely physically and emotionally exhausted in battling a system in which I have to appeal and

oppose every decision that is made by either the

Attorney-General or the administrative arm, sir, - you

are not listening so it does not matter. Basically,

sir, what am I to live on? How am I to get back to

Canberra? Why am I not being paid to be here? I

mean, you do not want to here this stuff, but how
am I in fact, you know, to live for the next week?

What am I meant to do,sir? I am talking about the

Nuremburg principles. I am talking about crimes

against peace and humanity. If this was a Nazi court

and I came and said people are being exterminated, you

would either have to act or you would be, you know,

party to the proceedings. You are a judicial officer,	sir, and I am telling you that I am extremely poor -
and exhausted by this. I expect some judicial support
for what I am doing. That is not unreasonable. This is not Nazi Germany. This is Australia in 1990. You
do not wish to hear these matters, but I say who will
listen? The Attorney-General will not listen and he is protected by a wall of bureaucracy,- well, look at
the clock then,sir, which I cannot prevail against.
The Human Rights Commission has no funding. The
Ombudsman will not assist. The Law Societies will
not assist. I mean you are, in a sense, in a position to, by the comments you could make from this bench, to
have me immediately provided with legal aid so that I
have QCs presenting this case, and not myself, so that
I am actually able to take a break from this matter.
If you agree with me that my legal duty is in fact, as a legally trained person aware of these issues,
to try and prevent serious crimes against peace and humanity, which includes crimes against the law of
Australia, like attempted murder and terrorism, if you
think that is a duty that this Court should, you know, at least take seriously and indeed encourage the
fulfillment of, then I need some help. And I understand what Your Honour is saying about needing to adjourn the

C3Tl2/l/CM	15	CITIZEN LIMBO	4 / 4/9'0
Limbo(2)

matter, but how much longer do I have to go on

in this way trying to set up public interest

advocacy centres to catch these cases that fall

between the cracks, when in fact this is a question

of your judicial powers.	Your Honour has the
inherant power - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Citizen Limbo, you have made a speech now. You

have emphasized the point that you are a legally

qualified person. In those circumstances it is

not too much to expect that you will understand that

your submissions to the Court must be directed to

do not propose to respond to what you have said, except	the exercise of judicial power. That being so, I
to ask you to what date, if any, would you find it
convenient for this matter to be adjourned?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Will the Court sit in Melbourne.sir? Will

I be able to do it by video link?

HIS HONOUR:	No.
CITIZEN LIMBO:	Will I have to physically hitch-hike back up

here again?

HIS HONOUR:  It is a matter for you to decide what you wish to

do, Mr Limbo. This is where the Court sits. Is

there any day you wish to suggest, Citizen Limbo?

1 propose to adjourn these applications, that is all	Well, in the absense of any suggestion from you I
matters which have been raised by Citizen Limbo in
his submissions here this morning, until 9.15am on
· Wednesday, 11 April 1990.	The Court will adjourn.

CITIZEN LIMBO:	Sir, if you made it something like eight weeks I could prcbably be able to sort .of like have a
rest and come back here and do it. I am afraid I
just cann9t maintain this pace and if Your Honour
refuses to hear what I am really saying to you,
you know, I cannot take it any further. I mean, Your Honour says, as a legal practitioner, I am
making submissions to you on your judicial power and
you cannot hear what I am saying.  But I say I am
making submissions to you on judicial power and of
course you can get up and waik out.

(Continued on page 17)

C3Tl2/ 2/CM	16	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

HIS HONOUR: Citizen Limbo, I do not propose to be provoked.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  I am not provoking you. I am making submissions

in a Court to you as a Justice.

HIS HONOUR:	I invited you to make a submission as to the date. You maintained silence. If you maintain
silence then you cannot - - -

CITIZEN LIMBO: Sir, could I make a submission that it be

eight weeks from now. I cannot possibly - I mean

I have just got - look at all the stuff I have

got to do. I have got legal aid applications -

I mean it is just - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, then, it can be adjourned for eight weeks

from now but you would understand that if the
matter is adjourned for that length of time, the

length of time of the adjournment must be very

relevant to the application for the extension of

time in which to file the notice of application for

special leave to appeal. I mean, if you are

conscious of the consequences of so long a delay

on the merits of your application, then I shall

accede to it and adjourn it for eight weeks.	It
is a matter for you, as the litigant, to choose

which course: you may have either an adjournment

for a week in the way in which I proposed, or you

can have an adjournment for eight weeks as you have
sought with the consequence, however, which I have

pointed out to you. Now, which do you wish?

CITIZEN LIMBO:  It is not just a matter for me, sir, it is a

matter for you as well. It is not just my

responsibility, this Nuremburg thing, this crimes

against peace and humanity, it is your responsibility

too.

HIS HONOUR: Citizen Limbo, I do not propose to debate with

you -

CITIZEN LIMBO: Eight weeks,

that, you know, the reasons I have •.•.. out I choose, sir, and I say

to you, I have a nest of documents which will not

appear in the transcript which I need to follow up

on legal aid applications and appealing,refusals

of legal aid and all that sort of stuff and I think

if I appear legally represented - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Very well then, the present application will

stand adjourned until 9.15 am on 30 May.

CITIZEN LIMBO:  Thank you, and Your Honour would have had a chance to read the documents by then.

C3T13/l/DR	17	CITIZEN LIMBO	4/4/90
Limbo(2)

HIS HONOUR:  I propose to adjourn this application until

9.15 am on 30 May and I will give you leave,

Citizen Limbo, to serve these documents, together

with any other documents that you may wish to

serve on the respondent in the mean time but
service is to be effected not less than 14 days

before 30 May and the matter will stand adjourned

until that time.

AT 9.55 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL 9.15 AM ON WEDNESDAY, 30 MAY 1990

C3Tl3/2/DR	18	4/4/90
Limbo(2)