Craig Andrew Betts - Application under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
[2013] NSWSC 1121
•16 August 2013
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Craig Andrew Betts - Application under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 [2013] NSWSC 1121 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 16 August 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: Application for leave to commence proceedings contained in the Summons dated 3 June 2013 is dismissed
Catchwords: Vexatious litigant - application for leave to institute proceedings - non compliant affidavit - no prima facie ground - no point of principle Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008Cases Cited: Attorney-General (NSW) v Betts [2004] NSWSC 901 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Craig Andrew Betts (A) Representation: Counsel:
Self Represented (A)
File Number(s): 2013/170301
Judgment
The Application
On 3 June 2013, Craig Andrew Betts filed a summons in which he claims the following relief:
"1. To appeal against all Police Charges and Fines such a traffic matters and other fines they are sending.
2. To move all police charges to the Downing Centre as Wollongong Police and Court too close and acting abusively and corruptly and the interpretation of the vexatious litigant decision from them means that everyone is able to abuse me act violently and corruptly. Also they act not in the interests of Justice. I and my mother are even harassed and pushed and prodded by Security staff. Now I have even had a Fine sent to me in the mail by Police from being at Court which I was legally there for a court proceeding and the Registrar refuses to answer the question who range me before the Court decision and said you cant see the Registrar as you are a vexatious litigate come down and look at my Gazette. They also have not answered a complaint about security and other matters and have been forced to s53 Review of Conduct under PIPA Act 1998 for securities invasion of personal space of my Mother and self and they have lost personal medical information and subpoenas on the NSW Police and Professional standards command.
3. To appeal against Charges of 2012/00104940 which the District Court has not heard and Judge Conlon said adjourned and no one has answered with the transcript nor has Judge Conlon answered and email about the matter. The charge was not even heard and I was convicted in my absence. There is another matter to do with this at the moment to do with this and to be able to appeal against this as well. I was not receiving the dates of mentions and some things had been sent willy nilly to my email demanding such things as I appear the next day or week some of which I never received and some went to my spam box.
4. To lay charges against certain NSW Police and have some action taken for especially kicking my door in and seizing unlawfully 3 computers and one smart phone without a warrant from the Supreme Court.
5. To Revoke the vexatious litigant order in full or vary
6. Certain Police are writing up false cops file and generally being malicious in all instances. To have that remedied.
7. Basically I am being bullied and ridiculed by all involved including Wollongong Council and to be able to take some action against them and remedy the situation.
8. However I REALLY and NEVER wanted or want to be tied up in courts. I would [mainly] like to have police to take action for me which they should have done in the beginning in all instances but NSW police are lazy and basically corrupt. Not all but most unfortunately.
9. The NSW Ombudsman is also bullying me and not takig any action and also now stipulates unreasonably and oppressively to send complaints by POST mail. Then pretends to not receive them. This is ridiculous and some of the matters are about the internet and need to be sent by email and online. Police have even lied about the last court proceeding and pretend to the Ombudsman it was heard and they these police were there cross-examined etc?? Certain NSW police are pretending to Represent the Commonwealth and the DPP and represent neither.
10. To be able to subpoena all NSW police and Ombudsman Files to do with myself and have that granted." (sic)
Although not expressed to be such, I have treated the Summons as one seeking leave to commence the proceedings adverted to.
In support of that Summons, Mr Betts has filed three affidavits, the first sworn on 3 June 2013, the second sworn on 25 June 2013 and the third filed on 13 August 2013. In addition to these affidavits, which also contained submissions, Mr Betts has also sent to the Court by email other material.
Vexatious Litigant
On 30 September 2004, Hoeben J made orders pursuant to s 84(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, which prevent Mr Betts from initiating, or continuing with, or making any application in, or instituting any appeal in respect of, any criminal or civil proceedings without the leave of the Supreme Court.
Hoeben J made these orders because he was satisfied that Mr Betts was a vexatious litigant. His Honour's reasons were published: Attorney-General (NSW) v Betts [2004] NSWSC 901.
By virtue of the provisions of clause 4(2) of Schedule 1 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 ("the Act"), the orders of Hoeben J of 30 September 2004 are taken to be vexatious proceedings orders for the purpose of the Act.
As a consequence, if Mr Betts wishes to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings, or to do any of the things which the orders of Hoeben J prevent, then he needs the leave of this Court so to do.
Proceedings for Leave
Mr Betts is required to seek leave in a manner which conforms with the provisions of s 14 of the Act.
It is then necessary for the Court to consider whether an order ought be made pursuant to s 16(1)(a) of the Act, that Mr Betts serve a copy of his application and affidavit on "each relevant person". That phrase is further defined in s 16(5) of the Act.
No purpose is to be served by a Court making an order for document service under s 16(1)(a) of the Act, unless it is satisfied that the filed documents on their face, are capable of satisfying the minimum requirements to avoid dismissal under s 15(1) of the Act.
Accordingly, as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 are applicable, and the Court is required to facilitate the overriding purpose of that Act, as set out in s 56, in order to enable the Court to consider whether or not such an order pursuant to s 16 ought be made, on 6 August 2013, I directed that Mr Betts was provide all submissions which he may wish to make to address the following questions:
(a) Whether the Court ought make an order pursuant to s 16(1)(a) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 for the service of the various documents which form part of the application, or else
(b) Whether the Court ought make an order pursuant to s 15 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 dismissing the application without making any order for service of the documents.
Having regard to the objects of case management, in particular s 57(1)(b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, I ordered that such submissions should be made in writing, and filed with the Court.
Since that direction was given, a number of documents have been received by the Court which I have treated, together with the Summons and Affidavits, as the submissions and the material in support of the application of Mr Betts. I have read and carefully considered all of the documents provided by Mr Betts.
Discernment
I am satisfied that the application for leave to institute proceedings must be dismissed pursuant to s 15 of the Act. My reasons for this conclusion are as follows:
(a) first, the affidavits filed do not, either individually or when considered together, meet the minimum necessary requirements of s 14(3) of the Act for an affidavit. The affidavits filed do not make any attempt to list the occasions, if any, upon which the applicant has applied for leave, nor do they list all other proceedings which the applicant has instituted in Australia;
(b) secondly, the affidavits do not set out any prima facie grounds for the commencement of proceedings which it appears are foreshadowed in the Summons; and
(c) third, to the extent that it is possible to identify any specific proceeding which it is wished to commence, the terms used in, and the contents of Mr Betts' affidavits, lead inevitably to the conclusion that any such proceedings would be vexatious.
Orders
The application for leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, contained in the Summons dated 3 June 2013 is dismissed.
**********
Decision last updated: 19 August 2013