FB v Paule

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, sitting as a single judge of appeal, considered an application by the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions to dismiss an appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent was appealing from a decision of Mossop J, who had dismissed his earlier appeal against a conviction for damaging property. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought the dismissal of the second appeal pursuant to rule 5604 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), arguing that the notice of appeal lacked any coherent or arguable grounds.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's notice of appeal met the threshold for coherence and arguability required by rule 5604(b) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). This rule permits a single judge to dismiss an appeal if the notice of appeal does not contain any coherent or arguable ground of appeal. The court also considered the respondent's status as a self-represented litigant and the implications of his non-appearance at the hearing.

The court found that the respondent's notice of appeal was so incoherent and lacking in substance that it did not provide any discernible grounds for appeal, despite the latitude usually afforded to self-represented parties. The judge noted that the respondent's written submissions, purportedly in support of his appeal, also failed to articulate a valid grievance. Consequently, the court was satisfied that rule 5604(b) was applicable.

The appeal filed on 14 September 2021 was dismissed. The Registrar was directed to email a copy of the decision to the respondent.