| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
S ECI 2018 03025
| JULIAN KNIGHT | Proposed Applicant |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Proposed Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Richards J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | On the papers, pursuant to s 63 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 4 December 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Knight v The Queen |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 796 |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – General litigation restraint order – Application for leave to commence interlocutory application for order that proposed applicant have full-time access to computer, in order to prepare proposed appeal – Proposed appeal apparently hopeless – Leave to file further material – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic), ss 3, 6, 30, 54, 55, 56, 58 – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 313.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Proposed Applicant | No appearance | |
| For the Proposed Respondent | No appearance |
HER HONOUR:
Julian Knight is a prisoner detained at Port Phillip Prison. He pleaded guilty on 28 October 1988 to seven counts of murder and 46 counts of attempted murder, committed by him in Hoddle Street, Clifton Hill on 9 August 1987. On 10 November 1988, Mr Knight was sentenced by Hampel J of this Court to life imprisonment in respect of each of the seven counts of murder, with a minimum term of 27 years, during which he would not be eligible for parole.[1] The sentencing judge noted Mr Knight’s co-operation with investigating police and his plea of guilty as ‘significant mitigatory factors’,[2] although these were ‘outweighed by the nature and multiplicity’ of his crimes and ‘the requirement that the sentences must be proportionate to the crimes’.[3]
[1]R v Knight [1989] VR 705. A sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment was imposed for each of the 46 counts of attempted murder, to be served concurrently with each other and with the life sentences.
[2]R v Knight [1989] VR 705, 709-710.
[3]R v Knight [1989] VR 705, 710.
On 19 October 2004, Mr Knight was declared a vexatious litigant.[4] Since 30 August 2016, he has been subject to an indefinite general litigation restraint order, under Pt 4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic).[5] The effect of this order is that Mr Knight must not, without leave, commence any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in a Victorian court or tribunal.[6]
[6]Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic), ss 6(1) and 30(1).
Mr Knight has applied, under s 54 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, for leave to commence an application under s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction and sentence, as well as leave to file an appeal against his conviction[7] and an appeal against the sentence imposed.[8] He also seeks an interlocutory order against the General Manager of Port Phillip Prison…
Continue reading Knight v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Knight v The Queen [2019] VSC 796
- Case
- [2019] VSC 796
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the provisions of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) and the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) to determine whether Knight's application was vexatious. The court noted that the appeal appeared to be without merit and that Knight had made similar applications in the past. The court found that the application was likely to be vexatious and an abuse of process, given the apparent hopelessness of the appeal and Knight's history of making similar applications. The court also considered the potential impact on the administration of justice and the need to prevent unnecessary waste of time and resources.
Consequently, the court refused Knight's application for leave to commence the interlocutory application for a general litigation restraint order. The court emphasised the importance of preventing vexatious litigation and protecting the integrity of the judicial process. The court ordered that Knight pay the costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.