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

[2022] HCATrans 101

[2022] HCATrans 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth   No P6 of 2022

In the matter of -

an application by WAYNE KENNETH GLEW MAN for leave to issue or file

EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 8 JUNE 2022, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   By application filed on 8 April 2022 the applicant seeks leave to issue or file an application for removal.  For the reasons that I now publish I would dismiss the application.

The orders are:

1.The application for leave to issue or file an application for removal filed on 8 April 2022 be dismissed.

I publish those orders.  I direct the reasons as published be incorporated into the transcript.

The applicant describes himself as “Wayne Kenneth of the family Glew” and “Wayne Kenneth Glew”.  He says that he is a “sovereign person, a flesh and blood man” and that “Mr Glew is a corporate entity ... a straw man” and that he has “no contact with him”.  Although such claims are legal nonsense, I am content to refer to the applicant in his preferred style.

On 5 April 2022, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), Keane J directed the Registrar of this Court to refuse to issue or file a proposed application by Wayne Kenneth Glew under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) without leave of a Justice of this Court. Wayne Kenneth Glew now seeks that leave pursuant to r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules.

The proposed application that Wayne Kenneth Glew seeks leave to file is for removal into this Court of a matter pending in the Magistrates Court, Geraldton, Western Australia in which he is charged with an offence.  Exhibit WKG 2 to the affidavit of Wayne Kenneth Glew sworn 31 March 2022 is a prosecution notice concerning the offence with which he is charged:  inciting another to commit an indictable offence, namely deprivation of liberty.

In his proposed application in this Court for removal, Wayne Kenneth Glew says that the “precise order” he seeks is that:

“this court being the only Lawful court established by the constitution, orders that all States put their Constitutions in place in their full text so the Commonwealth can be Lawfully established under Our Lawful Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK and Our Commonwealth Constitution 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted and all laws made prior to that happening be dismissed by transgressing the constitutions”.

A purported notice under s 78B of the Judiciary Act, Exhibit WKG 4 to Wayne Kenneth Glew’s affidavit sworn 31 March 2022, raises further issues.  The notice sets out 49 questions which raise issues such as land title, fraud, murder, slavery, treason, treachery, and acts of war.

On an application made under r 6.07.3, the discretion to grant or refuse leave is to be exercised by a Justice by reference to the same criteria which inform the decision of a Registrar under r 6.07.1[1].  A Justice will ordinarily exercise the discretion to refuse leave where the application “on its face”, assessed on the papers, appears to be an abuse of the Court’s process, frivolous or vexatious, or outside the jurisdiction of the Court[2].

[1]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [11]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.

[2]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [11]‑[12]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.

The submissions and materials provided by Wayne Kenneth Glew do not give rise to any “cause or part of a cause arising under the Constitution” sufficient to fall within s 40 of the Judiciary Act.  The issues raised by Wayne Kenneth Glew are “incapable on [their] face of legal argument” and are “legal nonsense”[3].  In the long‑established language of abuse of process, the proposed application is “manifestly groundless” or “manifestly hopeless”[4].

[3]Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16 at [35], [37].

[4]Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16 at [68]‑[76] citing and explaining General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129 and Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91.

There is no possibility that any oral submissions in this Court could further advance the application. The application is an abuse of process. I direct that it be dismissed on the papers without listing it for an oral hearing under r 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules.

Please adjourn the Court.

AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED