Gapes, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file

In an application before the High Court of Australia, Sonya Lesley Gapes sought leave to issue or file an application for the removal of a cause into the High Court under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The cause involved 128 charges under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld), and Ms Gapes contended that the matter urgently required transfer to the High Court and hearing by a Full Bench, citing concerns about her children, her mother's eviction, and difficulties in filing documents in other courts due to being labelled vexatious.

The legal issue before the Court was whether to grant Ms Gapes leave to issue or file her application for removal. This required the Court to consider the criteria for exercising its discretion under rule 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), which are the same as those guiding the Registrar's refusal under rule 6.07.1. These criteria involve assessing whether the application is, on its face, an abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, or outside the Court's jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the application, reasoning that it was so obviously untenable as to be frivolous or vexatious, and therefore an abuse of process. The application was largely unintelligible, containing unsubstantiated allegations of corruption and misconduct. Crucially, it failed to clearly identify any "cause or part of a cause arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation," as required by section 40 of the Judiciary Act. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principles from *Bienstein v Bienstein*, emphasising that removal orders are exceptional, reserved for important issues requiring urgent High Court decision, and are not intended to convert the High Court into a general supervisory court over lower courts, particularly when removal would fragment pending criminal processes.