Jones v Skyring

[1992] HCATrans 57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry No C4 of 1992

B e t w e e n -

FRANK WILLIAM DUDLEY JONES

Applicant

and

ALLAN GEORGE SKYRING

Respondent

Notice of Motion

Application pursuant to

Order 63 rule 6 of the High

Court Rules

TOOHEY J .

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 25 JUNE 1992, AT 12.57 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Skyring(l3) 1 25/6/92

MR ROBERTSON:  Your Honour, in this matter I appear for the

applicant. (instructed by the Australian

Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Robertson. Mr Skyring, you are

present in person?

MR A.G. SKYRING:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Thank you. Yes, Mr Robertson.
MR ROBERTSON:	Your Honour, I do not whether it be

convenient to call the other matter at the same

time; they do have a fair amount in common; they

are both applications under the same rule, but I am

in Your Honour's hands.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you have any view about this, Mr Skyring?

MR SKYRING: Well, I do not mind. I am easy; I can see

common ground, although there are - might I mention
I go so far in a general argument and then

Mr Cusack carries on. Certainly there are differences that need to be kept in mind.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I think probably they ought to be called

together because it would avoid duplication of

Mr Robertson's argument. So, call the other matter

too please.	Mr Robertson, you appear in that
matter?

MR ROBERTSON:	Yes, I appear for the applicant.
HIS HONOUR:	Mr Cusack, you are here in person?

MR CUSACK: Might I speak on that issue, Your Honour, of

whether we are heard together?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, you may.
MR CUSACK:	I would prefer that the matters be dealt with

separately, although I can understand

Mr Robertson's submissions being basically the

same. I believe that Mr Skyring, in my

application, should be treated separately.

HIS HONOUR:	Why is that? Just a moment please, would you come forward to a microphone.	You may not be
picked up.

MR CUSACK: In essence, Your Honour, I appreciate the

economy of time and effort from Mr Robertson's

point of view, but although there is one common
thread through my actions and Mr Skyring's actions,

the causes of our actions are entirely separate and

Skyring(l3) 2 25/6/92

I believe there could be some misconstruction if the two are seen as connected in a general sense.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right. Mr Robertson, continue as

before. I will deal with them separately but we will see what happens when we get to Mr Cusack's

application. But he is present in Court and there

are matters that you may be able to avoid

duplicating.

MR ROBERTSON:	As Your Honour pleases.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, thank you.
MR ROBERTSON:	In matter No C4 of 1992, therefore, the

applicant proceeds on a notice of motion dated

9 April 1992. Does Your Honour have that?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, it is in the file. It is just a matter of

picking it up. The file has become somewhat

complicated by a lot of material that, I think, has come from Mr Skyring, which has not yet been filed,

but I have the notice of motion here.

MR ROBERTSON:	Does Your Honour have the notice of motion?
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I do.
MR ROBERTSON:	The applicant seeks an order under Order 63

rule 6 of the High Court Rules. Order 63 rule 6,

as Your Honour will recall, provides that:

Upon the application -

relevantly -

of the Principal Registrar of the Court, the

Court or a Justice, if satisfied that a

person ..... frequently and without reasonable

ground has instituted vexatious legal

proceedings, may, after hearing that

person ..... or giving him an opportunity of . being heard, order that he shall not, without

the leave of the Court or a Justice, begin any

action appeal or other proceeding in the

Court.

That is Order 63 rule 6, the relevant parts of

subrule (1). And then, subrule (2) provides the

consequences of such an order, that is - - -

HIS HONOUR: Subrule (2) is not immediately relevant.

MR ROBERTSON:  Not immediately no, except it shows the

consequences of any order that is made under

subrule (1).

Skyring(l3)	25/6/92
HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR ROBERTSON:	And, Your Honour, the applicant, in support of the motion, has one affidavit, sworn by
Frank William Dudley Jones, the Registrar, and it
is an affidavit with numerous exhibits, but it is
an affidavit sworn 9 April 1992 - - -
HIS HONOUR:	Mr Robertson, could I just check that

Mr Skyring has a copy of all the material that is to be before the Court?

MR ROBERTSON:  Yes, by all means, Your Honour. It is the

affidavit and then there are in number 67 exhibits.

HIS HONOUR:  But what appears to be, so far as the Court is

concerned, is a series of books of collated

material.

MR ROBERTSON: 

Yes, there are three -

HIS HONOUR: 

Now, is that the form in which Mr Skyring has been provided with material?

MR ROBERTSON: 

Yes, it is.

MR SKYRING: 

Yes, Your Honour, there is a notice and the

three books which were served personally on me
within a week of the date on the - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

Yes, thank you, and Mr Skyring, do you also

have Mr Jones' affidavit, to which Mr Robertson has

referred?

MR SKYRING: Yes, that all came as part of the service,

Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, very well. Thank you, Mr Robertson.

MR ROBERTSON:  Thank you, Your Honour. I do not wish to say

much by way of opening the matter, Your Honour,	other than these two things, that, having taken
Your Honour to the rule, rule 6, and the various
parts of that in terms of frequency and without
reasonable ground, and so on, the applicant submits
that looking at the material in the affidavit and
the exhibits to the affidavit, looking at the parties to the various applications brought by
Mr Skyring, the respondent, looking at the nature of the orders that he has sought from time to time, the grounds upon which those orders have been
sought and, what I would described as the central
same point which recurs in, if not all, then in 90 or 95 per cent of each of the matters, that those are the factors and considerations that are within
the purview of rule 6(1). Those are, as we would
submit, the quality of the proceedings that would

Skyring(13) 4 25/6/92

enable Your Honour, in my submission, to be

satisfied as to the matters in rule 6(1).

That is the first thing I wish to say by way

of general opening, and then the second thing is

this, Your Honour, might I hand to Your Honour two

decisions which are actually in the affidavits, but

they are conveniently handled separately: one,

Your Honour will see, is the judgment of

Justice Deane in a matter called re Skyring.	Does
Your Honour have that one?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I have that.
MR ROBERTSON:	Dated 6 February 1985.
HIS HONOUR:	One moment please: do you have a copy of that?
MR SKYRING:	Yes, Your Honour, I know that judgment very

well.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you. Very well.

MR ROBERTSON:  And the other one, Your Honour, is the

judgment of the Full Court entitled, "In the matter

of an application by Allan George Skyring", and

that appears on page 1 as a judgment given on

9 July 1985.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

MR ROBERTSON: That is an unreported judgment, and for ease

of reference they appear as exhibits 11 and 15 to

the affidavit of Mr Jones, but the point that I

wish to make about them, in opening, Your Honour,

is this, that Your Honour will see, looking at the

judgment of Justice Deane, first of all, described

the nature of the proceedings that were then under

consideration by His Honour, some seven years ago,

and then, at the thi.rd page of the judgment, that

is page 631, His Honour sets out part of an

affidavit sworn by Mr Skyring and at about lines 8

or so, a part of an affidavit by Mr Skyring which

says:

"This present application may be regarded as a continuation of that earlier effort,

attention herein being directed towards

exposing and correcting the extremely subtle

fraud in the national financial system

operation which, it seems, has come about
through technological developments and which

has led to the gross distortion in the operation of our entire legal system -

Then His Honour sets out some more paragraphs of

the affidavit, and then if I could take Your Honour

Skyring(l3) 25/6/92

to the top of page 633, where His Honour says in

line 1:

Mr Skyring has also developed the matters which he wishes to raise in the contemplated

proceedings in the course or oral submissions.

Those oral submissions are recorded in the

transcript and it is unnecessary that I

attempt to summarize them in detail. The

overall attack remains one upon the Australian

financial system and to some extent the

Australian legal system. The objective of the

attack is to obtain a general review and

reform of the law of those areas. There are,
however, two particular matters which emerged

in the court of Mr Skyring's oral submissions

to which I should make specific reference.

These are:-

(1) A submission that the combined effect

of a number of sections of the Constitution is

to erect a barrier against the issue by the

Commonwealth of paper money as legal tender.

The sections of the Constitution upon which

particular reliance is placed are ss 5l(xii),

(xiii) and (xvi) and 115. Mr Skyring also

referred toss 105 and 105A. Additionally,
reference was made to the provisions of the Currency Act 1965 (Cth) dealing with coins.

The argument, if accepted, would result in the

invalidity of s 36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act

1959 (Cth) which provides that "Australian

notes are a legal tender throughout

Australia".

Then His Honour refers to another matter in the

paragraph No (2), but Your Honour will see at

line 30:

I have come to a clear conclusion that

there is no substance in the argument that

there is a constitutional bar against the
issue by the Commonwealth of paper money as
legal tender. Nor, in my view, would there be

any substance in an argument that the

provisions of s36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act
1959 are invalidated or overruled by the
provisions of the Currency Act 1965. That

being so, I am unpersuaded that there is any

substance in the proposed proceedings against

Mr Justice Spender, nor am I persuaded that

proceedings by certiorari against
Mr Justice Spender would in any event be

appropriate.

As regards the other and more general matters which Mr Skyring seeks to litigate, it

Skyring(l3) 6 25/6/92

appears to me to be plain that there has not

been disclosed any basis at all upon which the

relief sought in the proposed writs or the

relief indicated by Mr Skyring in the course

of his submissions could or should properly be

granted by this court.

And then, if I can refer Your Honour more briefly

to the decision of the Full Court, which I handed

to Your Honour, that is, the decision

of 9 July 1985, which was the appeal by the

Full Court from the judgment to which I have just

taken Your Honour.	Does Your Honour have that
Full - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I do, thank you.
MR ROBERTSON:	Yes, thank you, Your Honour. And

Their Honours recite briefly the history of the matter, which I am not presently concerned with, set out towards the end of page 1, part of

Justice Deane's judgment, and then at page 2, say

this:

Having listened attentively to the

submissions made by the appellant in support

of this appeal, we are not persuaded that the

judgment of Deane J contains any error. We

should say in addition that the power
conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament by
s.Sl(ii) of the Constitution to legislation

with respect to taxation extends to the

imposition of taxation and its collection,

even though it has the effect of requiring the

person on whom taxation is levied to pay the

tax out of property which he owns.

~ow, Your Honour, the applicant's submission, in

the most general terms, is that the points there

dealt with, some seven years ago, both by

Justice Deane and by the Full Court, are the

selfsame points that in substance have been

attempted to be relitigated, or relitigated on the
application of Mr Skyring, in, on a conservative

count, 22 applications to the Court and, in

relation to which, 11 judgments, both at first

instance by single Justices and on appeal, have

been given concluding, in each case, that there was

no substance in the arguments sought to be put, or

in relation to the relief sought in each particular

case by Mr Skyring.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Robertson, is it the fact that the material

in the three volumes of exhibits all relates to
proceedings in which the same or similar argument

is sought to be raised by Mr Skyring, or are some

of them quite distinct from others?

Skyring(13)	7	25/6/92
MR ROBERTSON:	No.	In my submission, Your Honour, none of

them is distinct; all of them have, either as a

central element, or an element slightly off-centre

this selfsame point about the constitutional bar to paper money being legal tender in the Commonwealth.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR ROBERTSON:	Now, that proposition has a number of

different manifestations, different actions are

brought, whether it is an application for leave to

issue a writ of certiorari or whether it is an

application for our fees to be waived under the

High Court rules and, no doubt, it is true to say

that some of the actions brought have other strands

to them, but in so far as the other strands are

concerned it will also be the applicant's

submission that those strands are equally without

substance. So, it is both in relation to the

remedies sought - that is the order sought - and

the point to be litigated, that the conclusion on

the applicant's submission arise that the

requirements of Order 63 rule 6(1) are made out.

Your Honour, that is all I wish to say by way

of opening. It will be necessary to some extent to

take Your Honour through the various proceedings

that have been brought - not page by page - but to show Your Honour where the particular substance of

the application is to be seen and then take

Your Honour to the relevant judgment where that

matter has been dealt with, and so on. But it is

quite clear, in my submission, that Mr Skyring does

not accept as correct the judgment, either of

Justice Deane that I have taken Your Honour to, or

the judgment of the Full Court to which I have
taken Your Honour to, and those selfsame matters

have been litigated frequently since, by

Mr Skyring.

HIS HONOUR:  An order made under Order 63 rule 6(1) has the

effect that no proceedings of any sort may be

commenced by the person against whom the order is

made without the leave of the Court, is that not

so?

MR ROBERTSON: That is so, Your Honour, broadly speaking.

There may be some question about what is

encompassed within the description of "any action,

appeal or other proceeding in the Court.". And

there is some authority that "other proceeding in
the Court" means original proceeding and not

interlocutory proceeding.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, but putting that to one side, the order

contemplates that the prohibition is not confined

to proceedings of a like nature to those which have

Skyring(l3) 25/6/92

given rise to the application but would extent to

any proceedings whosoever.

MR ROBERTSON:  Quite so, Your Honour. We would respectfully

submit that that is so and then what is interposed, as it were, between the litigant and the litigant's

ordinary right, is the criteria, either criteria in

subrule (2), that is that the Court or a Justice

then has to be satisfied that in relation to

proposed proceedings they "are not an abuse of the
process" and "that there is a prima facie ground

for the proceedings.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. There are a number of procedures that, to

some extent, intermesh in this area. I mean there

is the order which has given rise to this

application. There is the power in the Registrar

to refer an original process to a Justice of the

Court - - -

MR ROBERTSON:	Yes. That is Order 58 rule 4.
HIS HONOUR:	- - - who if, so minded, makes an order that no

proceedings shall be commenced without leave of the

Court, and that, I think, must have happened in

this case.

MR ROBERTSON: Frequently, yes, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  And then, I suppose, within the framework of

some proceeding in the Court there is the general

provision relating to abuse of process, which would allow the Court in an appropriate case to stop that proceeding.

MR ROBERTSON:  Yes, that is in the same order, Your Honour,

if I understand what Your Honour has in mind. It

is Order 64 rule 2, or that may be one of the

instances that Your Honour has in mind. There are,

of course, other provisions dealing with striking

out and the general steel industries sort of

approach to different -

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, but those sort of procedures all look to the case in hand, as it were - - -
MR ROBERTSON:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	- - - and empower the Court to put an end if

the proceeding is vexatious.

MR ROBERTSON:  Yes. This imposes or interposes a prima

facie bar so that no step can be taken in the Court

without the Court or a Justice being satisfied of

the matters in subsection (2).

Skyring(l3)	9	25/6/92
HIS HONOUR:	Yes.	I wanted Mr Skyring to understand that

the breadth and scope of an order made under

Order 63 rule 6 is not just confined to some particular proceeding that may be on foot, or some

proceeding that he may seek to initiate but somehow

is related to what has gone before.	It is subject
to the leave of the Court.	It imposes an embargo

on the commencement of any proceedings, at least in

the High Court.

MR ROBERTSON:  Yes. We would so submit, Your Honour. And

then, having made those comments, Your Honour,

formally I should read the affidavit of

Frank William Dudley Jones and tender the exhibits,

exhibits 1 through to 67, if it is convenient for

that to be done.

HIS HONOUR:  I do not require you, as a matter of form,

Mr Robertson. If there are particular parts of the

affidavit to which you wish to take me, of course

do so.

MR ROBERTSON:  Yes. I was going to, if it is acceptable to

Your Honour, really deal with that by way of

address - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I can see that.
MR ROBERTSON:	- - - because otherwise I will be going over the same ground more than once. So, perhaps,
Your Honour, at this point I should sit down and
see if there is any evidence on behalf of the
respondent and then proceed to, by way of address,
take Your Honour through the material.
Alternatively, I can take Your Honour through the material now.
HIS HONOUR:	I think it would be better, particularly from

Mr Skyring's point of view, if you were to do that

now, Mr Robertson.

MR ROBERTSON:  As Your Honour pleases. Your Honour, the

first matter in the Court is referred to in

paragraph 2 of the affidavit of Mr Jones. It

appears at exhibit 1, and it was matter No Bll of

1984 in the Court. That can be discerned at the

top right-hand corner of the document.

Your Honour, there are some feint machine

paginations of the various documents.

HIS HONOUR: Well, some of them are not only feint, they are

invisible.

MR ROBERTSON:  Some are illegible, yes. So, it will

probably be easier, in most cases, for me to take

Your Honour to the exhibit numbers. That is the

first document, seeking leave to appeal from a

Skyring(l3) 10 25/6/92

judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of

Australia. Your Honour will not be able to discern

the character of that apart from what appears on

the face of that document, but it is a matter in

which the Commissioner of Taxation was a

respondent. The grounds appear in the affidavit of

Mr Skyring, which is at exhibit 2. That is an

affidavit of Mr Skyring sworn 3 May 1984, and

Your Honour will get the character of it from

paragraph 1 of that affidavit:

The case overall involves a formal

challenge to the legality of our entire

national financial system as presently

implemented, with attention at this stage

being focused on the particular area of

funding of matters of national importance

generally.

Then, if I could take Your Honour over the page to

the paragraph numbered 3, and Your Honour will

already see a similarity between the matters,

subject of the two judgments I took Your Honour to,

and the matter set out in paragraph 3 of this

affidavit; that is where Mr Skyring says:

The essential questions of law involved are:

The validity of the various Federal Acts

passed pursuant to Section 5l(xii), (xiii) &

(xvi) of the Constitution relating to Banking

(and finance generally) and their interaction

with the currency, given the implied

constraint under Section 115 as to what can

and cannot be used as "legal tender".

I should, by way of elucidation, remind Your Honour

of what section 115 of the Constitution says.	It
says:

A State shall not coin money, nor make

anything but gold and silver coin a legal
tender in payment of debts.

And it has been Mr Skyring's contention throughout, and no doubt still it, that section 115 of the

Constitution also operates to limit the legislative

power of the Commonwealth, and it is that which

this Court has said frequently is not the case.

Then, Your Honour, another matter, if I can take

Your Honour over two pages, to the page that begins

with paragraph 8 of the same affidavit, in

paragraph 10 there is another matter there which

was a constant for some years, although I think may

not be any more:

Skyring(l3) 11 25/6/92

Since the matters raised are of a

constitutional nature going right to the heart

of our system of government, the Federal Court

is precluded from ruling on them, this being

the prerogative of the High Court of

Australia.

There was a notion in many of the applications to

the High Court that only the High Court could deal

with the constitutional questions and that is why

they had to be in the High Court, although, I

think, Mr Skyring now realizes that that is not so.

Your Honour, that is the first action, if I

can describe it as that, which takes me to then

paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Mr Jones and, if

Your Honour has that to hand, that provides an

index really to the documents, which brings us to

exhibit 3, which is:

An order for leave to exhibit an Information of Quo Warranto against that body known as

"Cabinet" headed by the

"Prime Minister" ..... 26th day of July, 1984. What is implicit in that, but appears from some

other material, is that Mr Skyring had filed or

sought to file an application, but in relation to

which there was an order or direction made under

one of those rules to which Your Honour made

reference, Order 58 rule 4(3), providing that the

writ, et cetera, might be the subject of a

direction of a Justice and then that meant that

leave was required in order to issue the process,

and that is what exhibit 3 seeks to obtain. The

form it takes is an order for leave to exhibit an

information.

This is action B24 of 1984, and that is

supported by an affidavit which is exhibit 4, and I

will not take Your Honour through that affidavit in

detail, but on the third page of it Your Honour

will see a reference at line 2, or so, to "Sir Ivor

Jennings' volume "Magna Carta", and then dropping

down to the end of that paragraph Your Honour will

see the reference to "taxation" and "doubtful

legality" "particularly in regard to "money"", and

the deponent then says:

I therefore decided to embark upon a

course of formal legal action through the

courts to obtain a definitive ruling on this

subject. When therefore I received my notice

of assessment for income tax in February 1980

for the previous year I lodged a formal

objection ..... and have been fighting this case

through the courts ever since.

Skyring(13) 12 25/6/92

If I can interpolate, Your Honour, the constant

theme, that is the illegality of paper money as

legal tender, of course has different

manifestations, whether it is in terms of the

legality of income tax assessments, or the legality

of a requirement under the Electoral Act to pay a

deposit in order to stand as a candidate and, as

Your Honour could imagine, the same proposition can

turn up in different places.

Can I take Your Honour over to page 5 of that affidavit, because even though the form of this

particular application seem to attack the

institution of Cabinet, the same theme was present.

If Your Honour looks at page 5 of the affidavit,

half-way down, the deponent says:

it has become very clear to me that none of

the participants in that drama fully

understood what they were doing because they

lacked real understanding of the nature of

"money", the proper manner of its creation and

the direction of its use to achieve "the

peace, the welfare, and good government of the

Commonweal th" .

And then at paragraph 11:

Given the all-pervading nature of the

issues at hand and the effect on the general

welfare of the people of this nation, an

application is hereby made for an order

against that group of persons, customarily

known as "cabinet" headed by the "prime

minister".

Then, Your Honour, the next exhibit is the judgment

of Justice Brennan on that application. It is a

reported judgment, as Your Honour may be able to

discern. It is 59 ALJR 123 - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR ROBERTSON:	- - - and there, in the right-hand column,

the judgment begins and the ground of refusal

appeared from 124 of the report, the left-hand

column, against the letter F, and His Honour there

said:

If I understand Mr Skyring's application

correctly, his challenge is not really made to
the individual persons whose names appear in
the summons and who are said to be members of

the Cabinet. The challenge is rather to the

validity of the office itself and that is a

course which is not sustainable under an

Skyring(l3) 13 25/6/92

application for leave to exhibit an

information of quo warranto.

So the judgment itself does not touch on the money

question, but the application was occasioned by

that complaint.

Then going over to paragraph 6 of the

affidavit - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Do you mean "paragraph 6 of the affidavit"?
MR ROBERTSON:	Paragraph 6 of the affidavit and exhibit 6 of the affidavit, but at that stage the numbers are
concurrent. Exhibit 6 is a series of documents which Mr Skyring sought to have issued as writs and
Your Honour will note on the first page after the certificate of exhibit 6 there is a handwritten note, "Order 58 rule 4(3)" and some initials which,
as will appear, are the initials of Justice Gibbs,
again to the same effect as before, Order 58
rule 4(3), preventing those documents from issuing
without consent.

Your Honour will get the flavour of them from

the persons to whom they are directed.	The first
one is to the Treasurer:

calling into question enacted Statutes,

provisions of which contravene fundamental

Civil Liberties secured under the Great

Charter of Liberties -

They are all in the same form I might say. The

next one is to the Minister for Finance, the next
one to the Attorney-General, the next one the
Minister for Science and the next one to a Judge of
·the Federal Court of Australia at Brisbane and the

next one to the Minister for Communications, and on

that document Your Honour will see in full the

order made by Justice Gibbs.	Does Your Honour see
that handwriting?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I see that, yes.
MR ROBERTSON:	And then, as appears from the affidavit, the Registrar sought the direction of the
Chief Justice; the process that I have just taken
Your Honour to, appearing to the Registrar, on its
face, to be a frivolous or vexatious proceeding and the Chief Justice made those directions and then, at exhibit 8 is the - I am passing over the
affidavit for a moment - process by which
Mr Skyring sought leave to issue a writ of
certiorari to remove judgments and orders made by
Mr Justice Spender on 18 October. That is at exhibit 8. Exhibit 7, if I could take Your Honour

Skyring(l3) 14 25/6/92

back to that: the first page of the exhibit, after

the exhibit certificate, paragraph 1, in the middle

of the page:

This present Application may be regarded

as a continuation of that earlier effort - which is the one that ended in the judgment of

Justice Brennan, to which I have just taken

Your Honour -

attention herein being directed towards

exposing and correcting the extremely subtle fraud
in the national financial system operation -

and that probably gives sufficient flavour of it.

If I could take Your Honour to page 4 of that

affidavit, there is a reference to an amendment to

the Currency Act and at paragraph 7 he refers to a

"sluggish response" from the Taxation Department

and:

in an endeavour to obtain some satisfaction, I

proceeded to raise like objections to charges

made against me by other "Crown

instrumentalities". One of these was Telecom

Australia.

I think that is all on that page, Your Honour.	Can
I take Your Honour to a page, if Your Honour can

discern it, 27, which is in the same exhibit, the

same affidavit, but paragraph 12, where the

deponent says:

That Spender J .... by upholding in its

entirely the particular section of the earlier

judgment of McPherson J •.... treating currency

matters, has also upheld the erroneous

statement in law made in the original

judgment, which statement specifically is the

subject of appeal proceedings before the

High Court, viz. " ..• the Currency Act 1965

..• is certainly in no way affected by s.115

of the Commonwealth Constitution ... ".

And the following page contains the, now familiar

contentions in relation to 5l(xii), 5l(xiii),

51(xvi) and 115 of the Constitution and their

alleged effect on certain statutory provisions in

the Currency Act. And, as Your Honour will see, in

paragraph 20 on the next page, there is a reference

to:

legislation covering the operation of the

financial system generally -

and the deponent obviously wishing to have -

Skyring(l3) 15 25/6/92

recast to restore the Sovereign right of the

Crown in the creation of money to its rightful
place and to allow that right to be used in
its correct manner to establish credit for the

financing of all public works (necessarily involving removal of "taxation" provisions

presently used for this purpose, these being

an infringement of property rights) -

I have taken Your Honour to exhibit 8. Exhibit 9

is the affidavit in support of the summons seeking

leave. I can give Your Honour sufficient flavour

of it from the first page of the affidavit:

Having through various means over an extended period of time sought to draw the

attention of the authorities at all levels of

the national administration to what appeared
to me to be massive defects in the operation

of our national financial system - and, as a

consequence, of the legal system as well -

and so on, and refers to:

the legality of the media used for the

national currency.

And I do not think I need take Your Honour through

the details of that affidavit. And then,

exhibit 10 is the transcript of the hearing before

Justice Deane, which resulted in the judgment of

6 February 1985, that I took Your Honour to. There

again, there is not a lot in it that I wish to take

Your Honour to because, as will appear from

Justice Deane's judgment, the central theme was

this question of section 115 of the Constitution,

and the legality of paper money as legal tender.

There again I can give Your Honour the flavour of

it. If Your Honour were to go to the

machine-stamped page 44 in the top right-hand

corner, in the middle of that page - point 5 of the

page - Mr Skyring says:

The problem which is central to all of

these that we keep coming back to, is this

matter of the currency.

Then, Your Honour, exhibit 11 is Justice Deane's

judgment, and I do not need to take Your Honour to

that again. Exhibit 12 is the notice of appeal

from Justice Deane's judgment and I do not think I

need take Your Honour to the notice of appeal.

Then, exhibit 13 is the affidavit in support of the notice of appeal, and exhibit 14 is the

transcript of the argument before the Full Court on

9 July 1985, and there is a passage I will take

Skyring(l3) 16 25/6/92

Your Honour to. If Your Honour looks at page 76 of

the volume, that is the machine-stamped number at the top right-hand corner, which is page 5 of the

transcript - does Your Honour have that?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I do.
MR ROBERTSON:	Your Honour will see a question by

Justice Mason, about point 8 of the page, where

His Honour says:

Am I right in thinking, Mr Skyring, that you

are attempting to litigate in the matters

which you seek to commence by the five writs

the same issues that you are seeking to

litigate in the application for certiorari

directed to Mr Justice Spender?

And Mr Skyring says:

In essence, yes.

And then the matter is discussed over further

pages. At page - if I can use the transcript page

numbering because it is easier, Your Honour - 15 of

that transcript, the middle of the page, His Honour
says:

We understand what you are trying to do, but our fundamental question, the question we have

to decide today, is whether or not you have an

arguable basis for the propositions that you

want to advance. Now, you have discussed the

two propositions, propositions that were

decided adversely to you by Mr Justice Deane. And over the page, on page 17 of that transcript,

Mr Skyring makes the point in relation to

Justice Deane's judgment, line 2 of the page:

My point is that it is not the Currency Act

which overrules the Reserve Bank Act or vice

versa. It is the fact that both of them are
subservient to and must ultimately be related
to the Constitution itself.

In particular, the items as I cited them above - 51(xii), (xiii), (xvi) and 115. So

what I am taking issue with is his framing of

what he has said there. That was not what I

was arguing and I am not saying that one Act

takes precedence over the other. They are

both subservient, if that is the right word,

to the Constitution. Now, this is where the interpretation of the Constitution comes in,

which is what I am seeking to have addressed

by this Court.

Skyring(l3) 17 25/6/92

His Honour says:

But Mr Justice Deane recognized that, you see.

In the first sentence in that paragraph he

rejected your constitutional interpretation.

And then, at point 8 of the page, in Mr Skyring's

argument, he says:

I would go along with him to the point that the Commonwealth is, in fact, empowered to

issue paper money. I am not disputing that.

What I am querying is whether, in fact, it is

entitled to be called legal tender under the constraints which are implied by section 115 in its action on section 51.

And I think that is all in that page. If I could

take Your Honour then to page 22 of that

transcript, where Justice Brennan at point 2 of

page 22 says:

Mr Skyring, your proposition simply is that

the powers conferred upon the Federal section 51 of the Constitution do not extend
to the extent to which the parliament has

exercised them, namely -

Mr Skyring says, "In essence" yes, and then
His Honour says:

And the reason why it does not is because the parliament has permitted paper money to be

legal tender and that is in excess of the

powers which those paragraphs confer?

And Mr Skyring says:

Effectively, that is what I am saying.

Then, Your Honour, exhibit 15 I have taken

Your Honour to, which is the judgment of the

Full Court to the effect that the Full Court was

not persuaded that the judgment of Justice Deane
contained any error. A submission will be, of

course, so far as that point is regarded as a

separate point, that even if the proceedings up to

that date were not proceedings without reasonable

ground or vexatious, certainly thereafter, in light

of the judgment, both at first instance and on

appeal, to the extent that the same point is sought

to be reagitated then, at the very least, the

subsequent proceedings were without reasonable

ground and were vexatious.

Skyring(l3) 18 25/6/92

Then a new phase occurs with exhibit 16,

Your Honour, where Mr Skyring sought the issue of a

writ of certiorari to quash a conviction against

him as an offence under section 52(a) of the

Reserve Bank Act, and if I could take Your Honour

to exhibit 16, the initiating process itself is not
there, but the affidavit in support is and again

Your Honour will get the flavour of the application

from the affidavit where, in paragraph 1 the

deponent says:

This action could be said to have had its

origin in June 1984 when an alternative

approach was being sought to overcome

procedural difficulties I had encountered in

seeking special leave to appeal to the High

Court -

and then, about point 7 of that page:

Yet another approach, focusing on the currency

and deriving from my taxation case was then

put in train in October 1984 through the

Federal Court.

And, again the same point about legal tender and paper money is being made. The point seemed to be that Mr Skyring marked a note - this appears from

paragraph 4 of his affidavit - and argued that the
piece of paper, as he said, the note, was not legal

tender, and therefore, no doubt, did not give rise

to the offence with which he is charged. But, of

course, the same idea underlay that defence and

Justice Wilson - this is at exhibit 17 - gave an

oral judgment on 10 July 1985 in relation to the

matter. His Honour sets out the - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Which exhibit is that, Mr Robertson?
MR ROBERTSON: That is exhibit 17, Your Honour.	Does

Your Honour have that?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I do.

MR ROBERTSON:  It sets out the offence provision. The

application for a certiorari to quash the

conviction, and then His Honour says:

It is Mr Skyring's contention thats. 36(1) of

the Reserve Bank Act, which provides that

Australian notes are a legal tender throughout

Australia is beyond the legislative power of

the Commonwealth.

And the next paragraph:

Skyring(13) 19 25/6/92

Mr Skyring frankly admits that the

central issue is precisely the same issue

which was the subject of consideration by

Deane Jon 6 February 1985 when His Honour

refused an application (in accordance with

Order 58 Rule 4) for leave to Mr Skyring to

institute proceedings in the form of an

application for a writ of certiorari. That

refusal was the subject of appeal to a

Full Court. That appeal was heard and

dismissed this morning when the Court accepted
the conclusions expressed by Deane J as

follows:

"I have come to a clear conclusion that

there is no substance in the argument that

there is a constitutional bar against the

issue by the Commonwealth of paper money as

legal tender.

And then His Honour Justice Wilson says:

The disposition of the appeal by the

Full Court has the necessary practical effect that the issue is no longer open to be addressed in these proceedings. There is no reason, on the materials before the Court, to

doubt the validity of s. 52(a) or that

Mr Skyring was rightly convicted of an offence under that section. There is plainly no good purpose to be served by making an order nisi.

It is unnecessary to consider the question of

whether in any event there is jurisdiction in

the Court to entertain the proceedings.

No doubt, the point being that His Honour there

alludes to is that certiorari is not one of the

remedies in section 75(v) of the Constitution.

So, Your Honour, that is the shortened

version, if I can call it that, of volume 1, and

then, volume 2 begins with exhibit 18, which is

another fresh phase, and it is seeking a writ of

certiorari to quash a decision of the Full Court of

the Supreme Court of Queensland. The affidavit in

support appears at exhibit 18, again the flavour of

it appears from paragraph 1:

An overview of the background conditions

which led to my initiating formal actions at

law before this honourable Court at national

level (and its counterpart at State level)

were outlined in my initial Application (B24
of 1984) heard before Brennan Jin Canberra on

6 August 1984.

Skyring(l3) 20 25/6/92

That, Your Honour, takes us back to the beginning of volume 1:

Although the order sought in this present

instance, viz issue of a Writ of Certiorari,

is different from the original, the end effect

sought will ultimately be the same, if

achieved by a more indirect method. The

present aim is to remove restraints to allow

the initiation of action for a Quo Warranto at

State level to set the pattern as a precursor

for action at Federal level -

Then, again, the constant flavour of it can be

picked up from page 4 of that affidavit,

Your Honour, which is machined page 110, at about

point 3 of that page, the deponent says:

Individual competence to grasp and

effectively deal with the surely central issue

of the day, viz proper use of the sovereign

right of the Crown to create money, is never

even considered, let alone acted upon.

And that action supported by that affidavit was the

subject of the judgment which appears at

exhibit 19, where Justice Wilson - the second

paragraph on that page - says:

The present application seeks a writ of

certiorari to quash the decision of the

Full court on the appeal. I have had the

benefit of both oral argument and submissions

in the form of an affidavit in writing sworn

by Mr Skyring. He candidly admits that the

proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland

were directed ultimately to the same question
which was the subject of an earlier

application by Mr Skyring made in the

High Court seeking the issue of a writ of quo

warrant directed to certain members of the

Federal Cabinet. That matter was heard by

Brennan J ..... His Honour refused the

application. Having the benefit of the

reasons both of Brennan J and of the

Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland

on the question whether any facts were shown

by Mr Skyring to support the issue of a writ

of quo warranto it is sufficient for me simply

to say that, with respect, I agree with the

judgments that have been delivered. The

decision of the Full Court in the present

matter is plainly right and no good purpose

would be served by permitting further review

of the kind sought by Mr Skyring. The

fundamental attack that Mr Skyring wishes to

make on the conventions that underlie the

Skyring(l3) 21 25/6/92

system of responsible government in Australia

are not matters which are justiciable in

proceedings such as these. It is therefore

unnecessary to discuss the jurisdictional

difficulties that would lie in respect of the

application.

No doubt, there again, perhaps referring to

section 75 of the Constitution.

Then, Your Honour, at exhibit 20, again there

is a new phase. This, as appears from paragraph 16

of the affidavit, is a lodgment of a document with

the Court seeking to have issued a writ of

certiorari. Exhibit 20 is the affidavit and there

again I can give Your Honour the flavour of it from

the first paragraph:

This present action may be regarded in

many respects as a continuation of earlier

actions before this honourable Court -

and the deponent again refers to the deleterious

effects that corruption of the national financial

system has on various aspects of life.	Does
Your Honour have that exhibit 20?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I do.
MR ROBERTSON:	And there again, I do not need to take

Your Honour through that in any detail.
Your Honour might miss, on the very last page of

that exhibit - so if Your Honour goes to

exhibit 21, the certificate page, and goes back two

pages, Your Honour will see another direction

"Pursuant to Order 58, r 4"

HIS HONOUR: That is the direction of 5 May, is it, 1987?

MR ROBERTSON:	That is so; 5 May 1986, I think it is.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, it is a bit hard to pick up the year on

this.

MR ROBERTSON:  It is referred to in the affidavit in

paragraph 17 of the Registrar's affidavit,

Your Honour. And then the next exhibit,

exhibit 21, seeks leave:

to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash certain

judgments and orders, delivered by the Full

Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland -

and exhibit 22 is another fresh proceeding; a

summons seeking:

Skyring(l3) 22 25/6/92

to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash a

certain judgment and order, delivered by the

Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

there again, at exhibit 22, it feintly, Your Honour will see a direction under Order 58, at the foot of

that - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I can pick that up at the foot of the

page.

MR ROBERTSON: That is the then Chief Justice. Then,

exhibit 23 is out of the usual run of the

applications. It seeks:

An order that leave be granted to issue a

Summons to convene a meeting to discuss/review a certain judgment and order -

All of these matters, the last two or three that I have referred to, are all dealt with in one

judgment at the end, so I have not paused to go

through them in any great detail. And then there

is an affidavit in support at exhibit 24, which I

do not need to take Your Honour through, and then

machine-numbered page 128, at about point 3 of the

exhibit 25 is a transcript of a hearing before

Justice Deane on 24 June 1986, and if I could take

page, Mr Skyring says:

Right that gives me a guide.

Well now, firstly, in regard to Bll -

which is one of the actions I have referred

Your Honour to -

which was the first one that was filed. In a

very real sense this is a continuation of the

matter which I raised when I last appeared
before you, Your Honour.	Now, in your

judgment then you basically shook the whole

thing down and you stated what was the crucial

matter beautifully.

So he refers to Bll and then he refers to B22 at

page 7 of that argument. I will not dwell on that.

His Honour's judgment appears at pages 14 and 15 of that transcript, where His Honour Justice Deane

says:

There are two applications before me.	Each
arises from an order made, in one case	by the
Chief Justice and the other by rule 4 -

Skyring(l3) 23 ROBERTSON 25/6/92

and His Honour says:

I have examined the material in each case and

heard what Mr Skyring has submitted in the

course of his oral argument. The order sought

in the first summons, B11 of 1986 ..... is as

follows -

and at the top of the next page:

The order sought in the second summons, B22 of

1986, is as follows:

And His Honour then says:

The basis upon which the orders are

sought by Mr Skyring is to be found in his

strong opposition to certain basic

characteristics of the Australian financial

system and in particular to the issue of paper

money. As I have endeavoured to explain to

Mr Skyring at the commencement of the hearing

today, however, those questions and criticisms

are only relevant to the applications before

me to the extent that they can be demonstrated

to be relevant to proceedings seeking specific

relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This Court cannot make declarations of the law simply because a citizen, such as Mr Skyring

thinks that it is in the public interest that

they may be made or that they be made.

In all the circumstances of these

applications it appears to me to be

unnecessary to say more than that the material

before me does not disclose any basis at all

upon which the relief sought in either summons

or the relief indicated by Mr Skyring in the

course of his submissions could properly be

granted by this Court. That being so, the

application for leave to issue initiating

proceedings in each case is refused.

Then, Your Honour, there was the exhibit 26, the

notice of appeal from that judgment of

Justice Deane, and there is a short affidavit at

exhibit 27, which I do not need to dwell on, and

then, exhibit 28 was a summons for:

A direction that the Federal Attorney-General

be joined as a party to the appeals.

And the second page of that exhibit has a direction

from Justice Wilson that that application be made

to the Full Court when the appeals were heard.

And, exhibit 29 is the affidavit in support of the

summons to have the Attorney-General made a party,

Skyring(l3) 24 25/6/92

as I understand it, and exhibit 30 is a copy of the

notice of appeal in B26 of 1986, and exhibit 31 is

the affidavit in support of the notice of appeal,

and exhibit 32 is the transcript of argument and

the judgment of the Full Court on 29 November 1986.

The procedural matters, Your Honour, are made a

little bit clearer, or the numbers of them, on

page 2 of that transcript. It appears from that

that there are three matters:

an application B26 ..•.. certiorari to quash a

determination of the Full Court of Queensland

in relation to certain provisions of the

Australia Act (Request) Act ..... The second is

B25 which relates to basically currency

matters ..•.• And the third one is a subsidiary

application -

as I understand it, to bring the Attorney into the
matter. And then, in relation to the Australian

Act (Request) Act, the nature of the relief sought

appears from page 12 of that transcript, at about

point 8 of the page, where Mr Skyring says:

In short, Your Honour, what I am

basically seeking for this Court to do is to

issue certiorari to quash, in effect, certain

provisions of the Australia Act as it now

stands but it started off as the Australia

(Request) Act.

At page 31 of that transcript, point 6 of the page,

Justice Wilson says:

Mr Skyring, your currency argument, that is

B25, is that the very same issue that you

advanced last year in seeking certiorari

against Mr Justice Spender?

MR SKYRING:

yes. In essence it was, Your Honour,

and so on. And His Honour says:

You failed to persuade Mr Justice Deane then

to grant an order nisi and you appealed from

His Honour's decision •.... to a Full

Court ..... and the same argument was

advanced ..... In substance, the same argument:
an attack on the currency? I think you
advanced it before me on another occasion.

And then Mr Skyring says:

Yes, Your Honour, because since then there has been an interesting change in the Currency

Crimes Act.

Skyring(13) 25 25/6/92

And Justice Wilson, over on page 32, says:

But, in substance, Mr Skyring, you must

appreciate the difficulty that this is the

second time in 12 months that you have got to

the Full Court of the High Court on what is

substantially an attack on the validity of the

currency laws of this country .•... Now, there

must become an end to litigation, for your own

sake as much as for anybody else's.

And then the judgment appears at page 38 of that

transcript, Your Honour, and in the first paragraph

His Honour Justice Mason refers to the background

directions given by the Chief Justice and"	of the applications were "necessitated by that page refers to the certiorari to quash the
Queensland statute, and section 36(1) of the
Reserve Bank Act, and the final paragraph on that
page Their Honours say:

Mr Justice Deane was plainly correct in so

finding.

That is that there was no basis in law to support

the proceedings for relief. And then Their Honours

also dismissed the application to join the

Attorney-General. And over on page 39,

Their Honours say:

In conclusion, we would wish to say that

the directions given by the Chief Justice and

Mr Justice Wilson were directions given

pursuant to a subrule which is designed to
protect both litigants and the Court from the

dangers of frivolous and vexatious litigation,

a protection which is as necessary for a

plaintiff as for a defendant. When an

application is made for leave and a fortiori

when an appeal is brought against refusal of	leave the applicant must be in a position to
identify, relevantly and with precision, the
legal grounds on which relief might be
obtained.

So, Your Honour, that was the end of that phase.

Then, exhibit 33 is a new phase. This is

matter B66 of 1986. Application seeking leave -

to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash a ruling of the Director-General of Social

Security ..... refusing further payment of

social security benefits.

Skyring(l3) 26 25/6/92

And then exhibit 34 is the affidavit in support of

that summons. Paragraph 1 again gives the flavour

of it: the application is made to the Court:

to provide a mechanism by which to formally

bring into my main actions before it (B25 &

B26 of 1986, which actions are ready to

proceed but have not yet been listed ..... )

other vitally interested parties, whose

presence is essential if my abovementioned

actions are to be conducted in such a way as

will give real justice.

And over on the next page of that affidavit, the

second line, Your Honour will see familiar notions

of:

"income", "money", "payment" and "legal

tender".

And then exhibit 35 is the transcript of the hearing before the then Chief Justice, and a

perusal of that transcript shows that the same

point is being made. The judgment is at page 11 of

the transcript, Your Honour, and His Honour the

Chief Justice refers to the background; the facts;

sets out section 107(1) of the Social Security Act

and in the last six or so lines of that page 11,

His Honour says:

As I understand Mr Skyring's argument, he

concedes that he was engaged by BHP as a

freelance design engineer during the relevant

period but he contends that he has not been
paid in respect of the work that he did and

that he cannot be paid in a legal fashion

because, he said, payment by a cheque is not
payment in accordance with the law for the
particular work that he did. In short, he

contends that he is entitled to be paid for that work in gold and silver coins and that there are no such coins.

Now, in so far as the argument rests on

that basis, I must say immediately that I

cannot accept it but, of course, on an

application for an order nisi it is

unnecessary for me to do more than say that I

am not satisfied that any sufficient ground

has been made out to grant the order nisi.

So that was that action. Then exhibit 36 is a

fresh application; a summons to remove a "cause

pending in the Supreme Court of Queensland". A

notice of motion is at exhibit 36. The affidavit

in support is exhibit 37. Paragraph 1 again gives

the flavour of it:

Skyring(l3) 27 25/6/92

This application is made as a corollary to my action seeking a declaration in respect

of the section of the Commonwealth

Constitution which establishes a constraint on

the powers of the Commonwealth legislature in

relation to the currency of the nation to

likewise seek a declaration in respect of the

extent of the taxation powers of the

Commonwealth under s.51(ii) of the

Constitution, the ramifications of which,

insofar as they impinge on the general welfare

of the people of the nation, are not

inconsiderable.

And that is the affidavit in support. Exhibit 38

is another fresh action; a notice of motion to

remove, under section 40 of the Judiciary Act,

another cause pending in the Supreme Court of

Queensland and the affidavit in support of that is

exhibit 39, and again, paragraph 1:

This application is made in an attempt to

obtain a final judgment as a sequent to what

appeared to me to be a series of interlocutory

judgments/orders by this Honourable Court,

notwithstanding that decisions by the

Full Court on appeal are involved,

progressively narrowing matters at issue

providing just resolution of what can

raised in previous applications of mine for things,

only been seen to be contradictions between

Commonwealth statutes relating to the currency

of the nation, in particular between

ss.5l(xii), (xiii) and (xvi) ands. 115 of the

Commonwealth Constitution (taken together) and

ss. 16, 22 of the CurrencyAct ..... and

s. 36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, as

amended.

That is the affidavit in support, and it shows that

the theme was the same and then those matters came

before the Full Court at exhibit 40 on 1 July 1988

at Brisbane, and if I can take Your Honour, again

just to get the flavour of it, to page 7 of the

transcript where, at point 5 of the page,

Mr Skyring says:

Well, what I am saying is, if when one comes

Currency Act, which, in terms of the Currency Act,

back to this now taxation is a

section 16 ..... is gold and silver coin.	We do
not have any in open circulation at face value, so, if I am to do things strictly

legally, I cannot pay that tax and that is my

Skyring(l3) 28 25/6/92

point ..... we have a set of inconsistent

statutes -

and so on. And then, at page 10 of that

transcript, the Chief Justice, point 8 of the page,

Your Honour - does Your Honour have that?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I do.
MR ROBERTSON:	But this Court has held that section 36(1) of

the Reserve Bank Act is valid.

MR SKYRING: Well, I would submit,

Your Honour, that you are wrong, very simply

and in terms of the constraint which applies

under section 115, which operates in the

manner that I gave in the documentation filed

previously.

His Honour says:

I know that, Mr Skyring, and I know that you

are obviously not convinced by the Court's

decision, but that is the Court's decision and

the Court is going to adhere to it.

and then there is further discussion, and at the

foot of page 15 His Honour the Chief Justice for

the Court says:

Having regard to the judgment of this Court

delivered on 28 November 1986 affirming the

judgment of Justice Deane at first instance

rejecting Mr Skyring's challenge to the

Reserve Bank
validity of section 36(1) of the sufficient substance in the points which

Mr Skyring seeks to agitate in each of these

proceedings to warrant the making of orders

removing them into this Court.	The
applications are therefore refused.

Then, exhibit 41 is another fresh phase, seeking to

have a writ issued against the Attorney-General of

the State of Queensland and again Your Honour will

see the notation, again by Justice Wilson under

Order 58 rule 4(3), again reference to "fundamental

Civil Liberties secured under the Great Charter of
Liberties of 1225" and there is also, at
exhibit 42, another fresh application, this time
against the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth,

seeking to agitate the validity of the Reserve Bank

Act, the Banking Act and the Currency Act and there

is also various other proposed originating process

in that exhibit arising from proceedings in the

Federal Court in relation to the Commissioner of

Skyring(13) 29 25/6/92

Taxation. The third of those documents is a writ

of prohibition:

to the officer of the Commonwealth popularly

known as the "Prime Minister" -

The next one is application for a writ of mandamus

to:

both the First Lord of the Treasury and the

Minister for finance.

And exhibit 43 - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Just before you leave 42, what happened to

those documents, Mr Robertson?

MR ROBERTSON:  Those ones, Your Honour, are, I think, picked

up in the subsequent documents. Yes, they were

picked up in relation to a direction that

Justice Wilson gave on 7 February, which is

exhibit 43 - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, it accompanies an application for an order

nisi for a writ of certiorari. You say that the

previous papers relate to that in some way, do you?

MR ROBERTSON:  Yes, Your Honour, as I understand it. The

Registrar, in his affidavit, refers to the exhibit 42 documents and exhibit 43 summons and exhibit 44 affidavit, and then he says in

paragraph 35 of his affidavit:

In February 1989 I sought the directions of

Justice Wilson, as the process referred to in

paragraph 34 -

that is all of that process as I understand

it -

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR ROBERTSON:

namely the summons and the documents the
respondent sought to have issued as writs -

which is the ones that I think Your Honour was

referring to -

appeared to me to be on their face to be

frivolous or vexatious proceedings. On

7 February Justice Wilson directed me to

refuse to issue the writs without the leave of

a Justice first had and obtained.

Skyring(13) 30 25/6/92

And it seems that the direction of His Honour was

intended to be taken and was taken as referring to

all of those deposed processes.

And then, exhibit 44, which is the last one in

this book, is the affidavit in support of the

summons at exhibit 43, and in support of the issue

of the writs at exhibit 42, and from page 2 of that

affidavit, paragraph 2, Your Honour will see that

still in issue is the validity of 36(1) of the

Reserve Bank Act and, by reference to the other

provisions of the Constitution, the Magna Carta is

referred to and "the validity of the Income Tax

Assessment Act, as a whole" is brought into issue,

and at the foot of that page, so also is:

The validity of the statutes and Court Rules

in respect of the levying of costs in actions

at law through the Courts -

again on the basis of the Magna Carta.	So that is
exhibit - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Mr Robertson, if that is a convenient time.
MR ROBERTSON:	As Your Honour pleases.

HIS HONOUR: Unfortunately, I cannot continue with the

hearing at the moment because I am involved as a

member of the Full Court. I apologize to all

concerned for the piecemeal nature of the way in

which I am dealing with this, but there is no

alternative I am afraid.	So for the moment I will
adjourn.

AT 2.14 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
UNTIL FRIDAY, 26 JUNE 1992

Skyring(l3) 31 25/6/92