Hunter and Minister for Local Government And Regional Development & Anor - [2007] WASAT 2

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: COMMERCIAL & CIVIL

ACT: ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2002 (WA)

CITATION: HUNTER and MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT & ANOR [2007] WASAT 2

MEMBER: MS J HAWKINS (MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 4 JANUARY 2007

FILE NO/S: CC 1648 of 2006

BETWEEN: LINDSAY HUNTER
Applicant
AND
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
First Respondent
RSPCA (WA) INC
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Seizure of dogs - Objection to Minister - Declared vexatious litigant - Argumentative - Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, deceit, cruelty, fabrication of evidence, non-disclosure and extortion - Failure to establish prima facie case - Vexatious proceedings - Leave to proceed refused

Legislation:

Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), s 42, s 42(2), s 43, s 44(6), s 44(8), s 55, s 60, s 72, s 73, s 74, s 74(2), s 74(5), Pt 3
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 50, s 60(2)
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 1930 (WA), s 3
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 4(1)(d), s 5(1), s 6, s 6(1), s 6(3), s 6(5), s 6(7), s 12

Result:

Leave to proceed refused
Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Self-represented
First Respondent           :     Mr SM Murphy
Second Respondent       :     Mr DJ Pratt

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Self-represented
First Respondent           :     State Solicitor
Second Respondent       :     Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Attorney General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189
Daynes v Public Advocate [2005] VSC 485

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The applicant, Mr Hunter, has applied for leave to institute proceedings in this Tribunal pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). Mr Hunter required leave as a result of the decision in Attorney General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189.
The subject matter of his application for leave related to the seizure of approximately 50 of Mr Hunter's dogs by the RSPCA (WA) Inc in or about May 2006.
As a result of the seizure of Mr Hunter's dogs, the RSPCA has commenced prosecutions in the Magistrates Court against Mr Hunter under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA). Mr Hunter has also been given leave in the Magistrates Court to proceed with a claim against the RSPCA for the return of his dogs.
Mr Hunter lodged objections to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development in respect to the seizure of his dogs, pursuant to s 72 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. Those objections were dismissed on the basis that Mr Hunter had been given leave by the Magistrates Court to commence proceedings against the RSPCA for the return of his dogs and that it was appropriate, therefore, for the matter to be determined by the Court.
Mr Hunter has filed a substantial number of documents, most of which make unsubstantiated and exaggerated assertions.
The documents filed by Mr Hunter did not specifically state why prima facie grounds existed to warrant a grant of leave pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002.
The seizure of Mr Hunter's dogs is the subject of longstanding proceedings in the Magistrates Court, and Mr Hunter has been given leave to commence proceedings against the RSPCA for the return of his dogs. The RSPCA's prosecution and Mr Hunter's application for the return of his dogs have been ordered by the Magistrates Court to be heard concurrently. Further, Mr Hunter did not advance any cogent independent expert evidence that his dogs were not being appropriately cared for by the RSPCA.
Accordingly, this Tribunal did not consider that a prima facie case had been established to warrant leave being granted pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002. Further, the Tribunal considered that the substance of the documents filed by Mr hunter could be categorised as vexatious proceedings under s 6(5) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002.
Accordingly, the Tribunal did not grant leave to Mr Hunter under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 and dismissed his application.

History

The applicant, Lindsay Hunter, has applied for leave to institute proceedings pursuant to provisions of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (VPR 2002 Act). That application was made in this Tribunal on 12 October 2006 and was supported by an unsworn affadavit of Mr Hunter to which was attached a large number of documents. In par 1 of Mr Hunter's unsworn affadavit, he stated that he was seeking leave to file the application to immediately stay the reviewable decisions in regard to seizure of 16 dogs, 57 golden kelpie guide and disability dogs, on at least four occasions in or about May 2006, by an inspector of the RSPCA (WA) Inc (RSPCA).
This matter was the subject of a directions hearing on 26 October 2006. The Tribunal ordered that copies of the application and the order made by the Tribunal on 26 October 2006 be served upon the Attorney General and the RSPCA and leave be given to both of those parties to file any submissions in respect to the application for leave under the VPR 2002 Act. The final order, made on 26 October 2006, was that subject to any further order, the application for leave under the VPR 2002 Act be determined as soon as possible entirely on the documents, pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).
On 7 November 2006, Mr Hunter filed a bundle of documents, including a notice of change of address for service in which he indicated that all further correspondence was to be directed to his legal guardian, Mr Dean Furness. As a result of that notice and telephone attendances by Mr Hunter upon this Tribunal that he was in Graylands Hospital, this Tribunal wrote to all parties, including Mr Dean Furness, by letter dated 22 November 2006. The Tribunal advised that a further directions hearing would take place on 8 December 2006. It was stated in that letter that the purpose of the directions hearing was to clarify the status of Mr Hunter's legal capacity, status and proof of Mr Furness' capacity as legal guardian, and his intentions in respect to the above proceedings.
Prior to that directions hearing, the RSPCA filed an affidavit of Robin Edward Moore and submissions on 8 and 15 November 2006.
On 8 December 2006, the matter was the subject of a further directions hearing, at which time there was no appearance by Mr Furness. Mr Hunter and representatives for the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development (Minister) and the RSPCA were in attendance. No submissions were made by the RSPCA or the Minister in respect to Mr Hunter's legal capacity. Therefore the Tribunal applied the usual presumption of legal capacity (see: Daynes v Public Advocate [2005] VSC 485) and made further programming orders in respect to the determination of the application for leave to institute proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the VPR 2002 Act. Each party was given time to file further documentation. At the directions hearing of this matter on 8 December 2006, the Tribunal inquired of all parties whether they had received all of the documentation filed in respect to the application for leave to institute proceedings pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act. All parties indicated that they had received each of the other parties' documents, but were given the opportunity to inspect the Tribunal's file to ensure that was the case, and to obviously file anything further in response if necessary.
As at the date of determination of this matter, no further documents, other than those listed above, have been filed by Mr Hunter, the Minister, or the RSPCA.

Applicability of the VPR 2002 Act

On 2 August 2002, Hasluck J made an order in accordance with s 3 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 1930 (WA) (1930 Act) that no legal proceedings should be instituted by Mr Hunter in the Supreme Court, or in any inferior court, unless Mr Hunter first obtained the leave of the Supreme Court, after satisfying it that the proposed proceedings would not be an abuse of the court in which it was intended to be instituted and that there was prima facie ground for such proceedings. The reasons for decision were set out in Attorney General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189. Notice of the order made at that time was published in the Government Gazette on 16 August 2002.
Subsequently, the 1930 Act was repealed by the VPR 2002 Act, which came into operation on 28 September 2002. Section 12 of the VPR 2002 Act contains transitional provisions which provide that if an order had been made under s 3 of the 1930 Act before the day on which the VPR 2002 Act came into operation, no legal proceedings shall, without the leave of the Supreme Court, be instituted by a person in the Supreme Court or in any inferior court, and the provisions of the VPR 2002 Act apply, as if an order had been made under s 4(1)(d) of the VPR 2002 Act.
Accordingly, the order made under the 1930 Act remains in force and is to be treated as an order made pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act.
Section 4(1)(d) of the VPR 2002 Act provides that the court may make an order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular class, without the leave of a court or tribunal, as the case requires under s 6(1) of the VPR 2002 Act. Section 5(1) of the VPR 2002 Act provides that proceedings are not to be instituted in contravention of an order under s 4(1)(d). Section 6(1) of the VPR 2002 Act provides that an application for leave to institute proceedings that is required to be made by an order under s 4(1)(d), is to be made in the case of proceedings before a tribunal, to that tribunal, and is to be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the application of the VPR 2002 Act. Section 6(3) of the VPR 2002 Act requires that the affidavit accompanying the application for leave is to list all the occasions on which the applicant has made an application for leave and to disclose all facts material to the application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that are known to the applicant.
Pursuant to s 6(5) of the VPR 2002 Act, the Tribunal is to dismiss the application for leave if it considers that the affidavit does not disclose everything required to be disclosed, the proceedings are vexatious proceedings, or there is no prima facie ground for the proceedings. The VPR 2002 Act defines "vexatious proceedings" to mean proceedings -
"(a)which are an abuse of the process of a court or a tribunal;
(b)instituted to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for any other wrongful purpose;
(c)instituted or pursued without reasonable ground; or
(d)conducted in a manner so as to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, or achieve any other wrongful purpose."
For leave to be granted, therefore, under s 6 of the VPR 2002 Act, this Tribunal must be satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for the proposed proceedings, and the proceedings are not vexatious proceedings as defined in the VPR 2002 Act.

Mr Hunter's application

The application filed in this Tribunal by Mr Hunter purports to be under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA). In that application, Mr Hunter has sought leave pursuant to the "vexatious decision directions and rulings". The Tribunal has presumed that Mr Hunter is therefore seeking leave under the VPR 2002 Act to commence proceedings in this Tribunal under the Animal Welfare Act 2002. The application filed by Mr Hunter stated specifically as follows:
"LEAVE TO FILE PURSUANT TO VEXATIOUS DECISION DIRECTIONS AND RULINGS ON RIGHTS TO SUE
INJUNCTION THAT NO RSPCA INSPECTOR APPROACH WITHIN ONE KILOMETRE OF ME OR MY ANIMALS OR VEHICLE
INJURY LOSS DAMAGE & DAMAGES & PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF INCOME AND FUTURE PROFITS
IN REGARDS TO 16 DOGS."
At par 1 of an unsworn document entitled "Affidavit of Lindsay Hunter sworn .......... 2006 in support of application for leave to file the application for review", Mr Hunter has stated that he seeks "leave to file the application for leave pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act, to immediately stay the reviewable decisions in regard to seizure of 16 dogs, to seize and/or detain a total of about 57 golden kelpie guide and disability dogs on at least four different occasions in or about May 2006 made by Christine Mary Jones, general inspector, nominated by the RSPCA Inc and to recover other property and other injury loss and damage and damages and consequential damages and loss of future profits and income and personal injury".
Attached to the unsworn affidavit of Mr Hunter is a bundle of documents. Included in that bundle are two letters from the Minister, one undated and one dated 15 September 2006. The undated letter states that the Minister had received Mr Hunter's objection pursuant to s 72 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 on 20 June 2006 and that the date on the objection form was 2 June 2006. The Minister indicated that he would require reasonable time to make an informed decision on the objection, given the information supplied by Mr Hunter and the complex nature of the allegations. The letter went on to make clear that until the assessment was made, the effect of the decision of the RSPCA to seize the dogs, which was currently the subject of a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 by the RSPCA, was suspended, and that the dogs remained under the care of the RSPCA.
In a further letter from the Minister dated 15 September 2006, it appears that Mr Hunter had filed a new objection form, received on 27 July 2006, requesting that the lodgement be treated as a fresh application under s 72 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. The letter goes on to state:
"The Court has given leave for you to commence proceedings against the RSPCA with respect to the seizure of your dogs. The Acting Minister for Local Government and Regional Development advised you in his decision, against your original Objection, that he considered it appropriate that the matter be determined by the Court.
I also consider it appropriate that the matter be resolved through the Courts and I accordingly dismiss your Objection."
There are a range of matters raised by the documents filed by Mr Hunter. Given the documents that have been filed by Mr Hunter, it is difficult to ascertain exactly the nature of his applications. However, it appears to this Tribunal that Mr Hunter is seeking leave pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act to initiate proceedings relating to the Minister's decision in respect to Mr Hunter's objection made under s 72 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, which concerns the seizure of his dogs by the RSPCA. Mr Hunter's application also suggests he was seeking leave pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act for:
a)injunctions against inspectors of the RSPCA;
b)loss and damage for personal injury;
c)loss of income and future profits in regards to 16 of his dogs;
d)consequential damages;
e)a stay of the decisions concerning the seizure of his dogs in May 2006 by the RSPCA; and
f)discovery of a variety of information from a variety of persons.

Relevant events concerning the Animal Welfare Act 2002

It has been difficult to ascertain from the documents filed by Mr Hunter the relevant events relating to Mr Hunter's leave application pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act.
An affidavit has been filed by the RSPCA, sworn by Robin Edward Moore on 15 September 2006 (Moore affidavit). Mr Moore is an RSPCA Prosecuting Inspector. It appears from the Moore affidavit that on 18 and 24 May 2006, inspectors from the RSPCA seized 43 dogs belonging to or under the control of Mr Hunter pursuant to s 42 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002.
The RSPCA inspectors also seized an unlicenced blue Toyota HiAce van belonging to Mr Hunter, pursuant to s 43 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002.
The affidavit goes on to indicate that on 30 May 2006, the RSPCA took possession of a further seven puppies from Mundaring Shire rangers.
Section 42 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 provides that an inspector may seize an animal if he reasonably suspects that an offence under Pt 3 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 is being, or has been, committed in respect of the animal, or under a warrant issued pursuant to s 60 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. By s 42(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, an inspector who seizes an animal is to ensure that it is properly treated and cared for (including the provision of veterinary care if that is appropriate) until it is dealt with under the other provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2002.
Section 43 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 also makes provision for the seizure of any property that an inspector reasonably suspects is being, or has been, used to commit an offence under the Act or which may afford of the commission of an offence. The thing seized is to be kept in safe custody and maintained in the condition it was in when it was seized.
According to the Moore affidavit, Mr Hunter filed an application on 2 June 2006 in the Magistrates Court at Perth for leave to initiate proceedings pursuant to s 44(6) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 for the return of his dogs and for other claims. That application included an application for leave to proceed pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act. The reason given in that application by Mr Hunter was that the RSPCA had unlawfully and illegally obtained a warrant and seized 30 plus guide and disability dogs and about 10 puppies belonging to him, and that further property had been taken, including a campervan, medical toiletry, intellectual property, food, software, bedding, computers, parts and accessories. In the affidavit in support sworn 2 June 2006, Mr Hunter suggested that the matter was urgent and needed expediting. He indicated in that affidavit that his physical and mental health was inextricably linked to his close association with his dogs, who were his de facto family. Attached to that affidavit was a letter, dated 23 May 2006, addressed to the Crime and Corruption Commission from Mr Hunter. In that letter, he alleged fraud by the Attorney General, the State Solicitor and other legal practitioners. There was also an allegation of perjury by those persons. There was no reference in that letter to the seizure of his dogs.
According to the Moore affidavit, the Magistrates Court, on 12 June 2006, ordered that the application for leave to institute proceedings against a range of parties, including the RSPCA, be dismissed. On that same day, a prosecution notice was issued by the RSPCA against Mr Hunter for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2002, being five charges of cruelty to animals and two charges of obstructing an inspector, arising from the seizures by the RSPCA in May 2006. Subsequently, on 16 June 2006, Mr Hunter was given leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 44(6) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 for the return of his dogs by the Magistrates Court, and it was ordered that such proceedings were to be heard concurrently with the RSPCA's prosecutions.
Mr Moore went on in his affidavit to depose that on or about 21 June 2006, he received advice from the Department of Local Government and Regional Development that Mr Hunter had lodged an objection against the seizure of his dogs and vehicles with the Minister, pursuant to s 72 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002.
The prosecution by the RSPCA, according to the Moore affidavit, has been the subject of appearances in the Magistrates Court Midland on 22 June 2006, 25 July 2006 and 8 August 2006. The orders made on 22 June 2006 were that Mr Hunter be released on a bail undertaking, and he was required not to contact any witnesses involved in the prosecution other than through a lawyer, but be permitted to have a veterinarian nominated by him examine his dogs by prior arrangement with the RSPCA prosecuting inspector. It also appears from the Moore affidavit that on 25 July 2006, Mr Hunter was served with disclosure documents which included the disclosure of DVD and CD copies of materials.

On 1 August 2006, the RSPCA filed an application pursuant to s 44(8) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 seeking orders for the forfeiture of Mr Hunter's van.
At a further hearing on 8 August 2006, the RSPCA was directed to serve a further copy of the DVD and CD, provided with the disclosure documents, to Mr Hunter.
The Moore affidavit went on to indicate that by 19 August 2006, Mr Hunter had served a further letter of demand on the RSPCA. That letter was annexed to the Moore affidavit. It is a letter prepared by Mr Hunter dated 18 August 2006 and entitled "FINAL DEMAND for payment of debt within seven days from date of this demand". In that letter, Mr Hunter seeks payment of $215 000 for 86 days lost income at 10 hours a day, seven days a week at $250 per hour. The letter also goes on to seek injury loss and damages and loss of future profits, cloning costs and rehabilitation costs, which would be recovered in the Federal Court for deceptive and misleading conduct and fraud, and for the current damage to Mr Hunter's new breed of golden kelpies, including DNA (genetic) damage, biological damage and psychological damage.
The Moore affidavit explains that Mr Hunter has also filed a Form 6 application in the Magistrates Court Midland. That application sought orders that Magistrate Roberts stand down and/or disqualify himself from hearing any issues to do with Mr Hunter, on the grounds of real or perceived bias, and with reference being made to "the ridiculous bail condition" and "another ridiculous bail condition" not to allow Mr Hunter to speak to witnesses who "clearly fabricated evidence". The application also sought disclosure as to the location of his dogs and puppies, and disclosure of evidentiary material and particulars relating to the prosecution. According to the Moore affidavit, on 11 September 2006, a further hearing in relation to Mr Hunter's prosecution was held and the Magistrate declined to make any of the orders sought by Mr Hunter.

Mr Hunter's documents

As previously stated, par 1 of Mr Hunter's unsworn affidavit suggests that he is seeking leave pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act. Mr Hunter's unsworn affidavit and supporting documents make many assertions and allegations, most of which are unrelated to the issue of seeking to establish prima facie grounds for the proceedings pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act. A summary of some of the allegations, claims and assertions in the unsworn affidavit of Mr Hunter are set out as follows:
•At par 7, Mr Hunter claims that the documents relied upon by the RSPCA to seize his dogs were illegally served on him and are incomplete and do not comply with the law.
•At par 8, Mr Hunter indicates that he was late in filing his objection with the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, as he had not been present at the seizure of his dogs and did not know what had happened, and he claims that there had been deliberate stalling tactics on the part of the RSPCA, for which he alleges he is filing contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court.
•At par 11, Mr Hunter indicates that he is seeking an extension of time to file his application if it is found that there is a delay, which he claims was deliberately caused by the RSPCA.
•From par 12 to par 17, he makes application for the provision of original documents, including original miniDVD videotapes and videos from up to 61 persons or organisations.
•At par 18, Mr Hunter simply states that his application is not vexatious but is a constitutional right.
•At par 19, Mr Hunter then sets out a number of previous applications for leave under the VPR 2002 Act.
•Paragraphs 21 to 52 set out a history of allegations by him against the RSPCA, many of which are extreme, not corroborated by independent evidence, and essentially argumentative assertions. Some of the uncorroborated assertions are set out as follows:
•Paragraph 41 states: "the very obvious things I am aware of, is that Christine Jones is almost certainly a psychopath";
•Paragraph 44.9 states: "Jones typed a letter (that I agree to sign over all my dogs to the RSPCA) and forged my signature on it (presumably) and then sent a known hitman to see me with a letter and such hitman gave me the message from Jones that I would be killed or shot in the head if I did not admit to signing such letter. The letter was typed in the RSPCA offices in the presence of 2 organised crime figures and Matt Douse, Ron Soutar and Robin Moore";
•Paragraph 44.10 states: "this is extortion, and this act underlines the psychotic and criminal tendencies of Jones".
•Paragraphs 47 to 51 suggest that his dogs are being cruelly treated by the RSPCA.
In addition to the unsworn affidavit of Mr Hunter, he has also filed a range of other documents. A summary of the documents and assertions made are set out as follows:
•Two letters addressed to the RSPCA are both dated 10 October 2006. The first letter demands return of all his dogs, and seeks consent by the RSPCA to a Supreme Court injunction restraining the RSPCA or any of its agents approaching him or his dogs. It also goes on to seek payment of $7 129 000 from the RSPCA for a range of matters including lost income, DNA sample storage, cloning costs, damages for defamation, loss of income from businesses, lost opportunity Guinness Book of Records, etc;
•In the second letter addressed to the Committee of the RSPCA (WA) Inc, also dated 10 October 2006, Mr Hunter sets out a range of allegations, again which are uncorroborated by independent evidence or supported by expert opinion. Some of those allegations relate to events in May 2006 concerning officers of the RSPCA involved in the seizure of his dogs. He maintains that at the time of the seizure on 18 May 2006, his dogs were clearly in excellent condition. He also makes assertions that the RSPCA officers at that time attempted extortion, threatened him, acted deceptively, misleadingly, unlawfully, fraudulently and without power. In that same letter, Mr Hunter asserts that the subject dogs and puppies are a valuable new breed of golden kelpies bred and trained for guide and disability work, and that at the time they were seized, they were well fed and exercised working dogs.
As to the seizures of Mr Hunter's dogs and puppies that took place on 24 May 2006, he asserts that the seizure took place without an express warrant, that prior to the seizure of his dogs, it was never established that any of the dogs were suffering from harm, and accordingly suggests, therefore, that the dogs were stolen by the officers of the RSPCA. It is also alleged that the officers of the RSPCA at the time of seizure were illegally trespassing upon the premises at which the subject dogs and puppies were seized, and that the RSPCA officers tormented and intimidated and threatened one or more of his dogs. The letter to the RSPCA ends with a variety claims of threats being made to him by officers of the RSPCA. One extreme example of this is as follows:
"PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION WHY JONES, DOUST, SOUTAR AND MOORE AND OTHERS MET WITH TROY MERCANTI AND BRAD HOWSON IN THE RSPCA OFFICES WHEN JONES TYPED THE EXTORTION LETTER BEFORE THE THREATS TO SHOOT ME IN THE HEAD OR KILL ME."
In addition to the documents filed by Mr Hunter on 12 October 2006, Mr Hunter also filed a bundle of documents on 7 November 2006, many of which are irrelevant, and relate to allegations prior to the seizure of the subject dogs and puppies by the RSPCA in May 2006. The documents that do relate to the seizure of the subject dogs and puppies in May 2006 by the RSPCA again make various uncorroborated assertions of illegal conduct by officers of the RSPCA and cruelty by officers of the RSPCA against some of his dogs and puppies. One of the further documents filed by Mr Hunter is a letter, dated 20 July 2006, to Dr Andy Keith of the Veterinary Surgeons Board in respect to an officer of the RSPCA who is a veterinary surgeon. It again makes unsubstantiated claims of criminal activity on the part of officers of the RSPCA.
There are also documents claiming a range of injunctions against unnamed parties.

Submissions

It should be noted that Mr Hunter has not filed any cogent or detailed submissions in respect to why leave should be granted under the VPR 2002 Act.
The Minister for Local Government has not filed any submissions in respect to the leave application under the VPR 2002 Act.
Submissions have been received from the RSPCA. The RSPCA set out a background to the matter, which has already been referred to in the Moore affidavit.
The RSPCA has submitted that given the pending prosecutions by the RSPCA and leave having been given to Mr Hunter to commence proceedings pursuant to s 44(6) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 for the return of his dogs, which is to be dealt with concurrently with the RSPCA's prosecution, leave should not be granted under the VPR 2002 Act. Alternatively, the RSPCA submits that any application by Mr Hunter should be dismissed pursuant to s 50 of the SAT Act, on the basis that any application by Mr Hunter for the return of his dogs would be more appropriately dealt with by the Magistrates Court concurrently with the prosecution. It should be noted at this point that only a judicial officer of the Tribunal may make an order pursuant to s 50 of the SAT Act. As I am not a judicial member, I am unable to make any order pursuant to s 50 of the SAT Act.

Considerations

As previously stated, it is necessary for Mr Hunter to obtain leave pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act. Leave is not to be granted under s 6(7) of the VPR 2002 Act unless this Tribunal can be satisfied that the proceedings are not vexatious proceedings and that there are prima facie grounds for the proceedings.
The application filed with this Tribunal on 12 October 2006 has been filed pursuant to s 74(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. As previously stated, it appears to seek leave to file proceedings pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act. It seeks a range of remedies. It appears that Mr Hunter lodged objections under s 72 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 with the Minister. These objections related to the seizure of his dogs by the RSPCA in or about May 2006. In a letter dated 15 September 2006, the then Minister dismissed Mr Hunter's objection on the basis that:
"the Court has given leave for you to commence proceedings against the RSPCA with respect to the seizure of your dogs. The Acting Minister for Local Government and Regional Development advised you in his decision, against your original Objection, that he considered it appropriate that the matter be determined by the Court.
I also consider it appropriate that the matter be resolved through the Courts and I accordingly, dismiss your Objection."
Section 74 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 allows a person aggrieved by a decision of a Minister under s 72 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of that decision. Section 74(5) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 provides:
"(5) If an application for review has been made in relation to a decision ‑
(a)of the Minister on a licensing matter or of an inspector, the effect of that decision; or
(b)of the Minister on an objection, the effect of the decision that was the subject of the objection,
is suspended until the State Administrative Tribunal deals with the matter unless the Tribunal orders otherwise."
Before leave can be granted under the VPR 2002 Act therefore, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for the proceedings. It is necessary for Mr Hunter to establish prima facie grounds for a review of the Minister's decision to dismiss Mr Hunter's objection in respect to the seizure of his dogs by the RSPCA.
Mr Hunter has not specifically stated what he suggests are the prima facie grounds for obtaining leave under the VPR 2002 Act. What can be gleaned from the documents that he has filed, is that at the time the seizure of the subject dogs took place, they were well fed, exercised working dogs, that the seizure took place without any express warrant and prior to it being established that the subject dogs and puppies were suffering from any harm. What is apparent from the documentation filed by Mr Hunter is that he has a strong desire to determine the state of health of the subject dogs taken from him and obviously to have them returned to him. He has not, however, addressed whether there is any prima facie or arguable case in respect to reviewing the decision of the Minister. Namely, he has not raised any prima facie or arguable case that the dismissal of his objection by the Minister pursuant to s 73 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, for the reasons set out in the Minister's letter dated 15 September 2006, is unwarranted.
In that letter, the Minister has dismissed Mr Hunter's objection on the basis that he has been given leave to commence proceedings against the RSPCA with respect to seizure of his dogs. It is clear from the Moore affidavit that prosecution proceedings have been commenced by the RSPCA in respect to the seizure of the subject dogs. By these proceedings, the RSPCA is seeking an order, pursuant to s 55 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, for the forfeiture of Mr Hunter's dogs. Further, it appears that Mr Hunter has been given leave to initiate proceedings, pursuant to s 44(6) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, for the return of his dogs.
Currently then, there are related proceedings on foot in the Magistrates Court which concern the seizure of the subject dogs. Mr Hunter has been given leave to commence proceedings against the RSPCA for the return of the subject dogs to be heard concurrently with the prosecutions made by the RSPCA. It is for that reason that the Minister considered that it was appropriate to dismiss Mr Hunter's objection in respect to the seizure of his dogs, as all matters relevant to the seizure of the dogs were to be determined by the Magistrates Court. It appears to this Tribunal, therefore, that the subject matter of this application, namely, the seizure of Mr Hunter's dogs in or about May 2006 by the RSPCA, is already the subject of proceedings in the Magistrates Court. Mr Hunter has not advanced any reason as to why it is not appropriate to let those proceedings run their course as suggested by the Minister.
This Tribunal considers that the reasons given by the Minister, in dismissing Mr Hunter's objections were satisfactory. The proceedings in the Magistrates Court relate to the same issue – namely, the seizure of the subject dogs. Mr Hunter is being given the opportunity to be heard on the same issues as would be before this Tribunal in the Magistrates Court, that is, the issues relating to the seizure of his dogs and the possible return of his dogs.
Mr Hunter is clearly concerned for the welfare of his dogs. He has not, however, placed any independent expert evidence before this Tribunal to establish that his dogs are not being given appropriate care. The Tribunal notes that the RSPCA is required, by s 42(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, to ensure that any animal that is seized is properly treated and cared for, including the provision of veterinary care.
The Tribunal does not consider, therefore, that there is a prima facie case to proceed with a review of the Minister's decision under s 74 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002.
The Tribunal is, therefore, not satisfied in the manner required by s 6(7) of the VPR 2002 Act that Mr Hunter has advanced a prima facie or arguable case in respect to review of the Minister's decision.
Further, the documents filed by Mr Hunter make extreme and unsubstantiated allegations against the RSPCA and its officers, as referred to earlier in these reasons. As a result of the documents filed by Mr Hunter, the Tribunal considers that these proceedings can easily be categorised as vexatious proceedings, as they are instituted or pursued without reasonable grounds, and further conducted in a manner so as to harass or annoy. For those reasons, therefore, the Tribunal considers that the application for leave to proceed pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act must be refused.
As the Tribunal does not consider leave should be granted under the VPR 2002 Act, it is unnecessary to deal with the remainder of Mr Hunter's claims for relief.
It should also be noted that Mr Hunter had sought, at the initial directions hearing, that an order be made by this Tribunal pursuant to s 74(5) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, that the effect of the Minister's decision, that was the subject of Mr Hunter's objection, be suspended. It was made clear to Mr Hunter, at the first directions hearing of this matter, that, before consideration could be given to any possible order under s 74(5) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, leave would first need to be granted pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act. Given that this Tribunal is not prepared to grant leave pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act, it is not necessary to make any order pursuant to s 74(5) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. In any event, even if leave pursuant to the VPR 2002 Act had been granted to Mr Hunter, it would have been likely that this Tribunal would have made an order that the usual suspension under s 74(5) not apply. This Tribunal would have considered it appropriate for the status quo to remain and the dogs seized by the RSPCA to remain in their care, given the related proceedings in the Magistrates Court and the requirements on the RSPCA under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 to properly care for animals seized by it.

Orders

1.The application for leave pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) be dismissed.
2.That, as Mr Hunter has not been granted leave to proceed pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), Mr Hunter's purported application under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) filed in this Tribunal on 12 October 2006 be, and is, hereby dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding [62] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS J HAWKINS, MEMBER