Letts v The Commonwealth of Australia

[1992] HCATrans 306

~	~
-.....	~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Perth No P38 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

ARTHUR LETTS

Appellant

and

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA,
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
AUSTRALIA,
THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE
HIGH COURT, F.W.D. JONES,
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA,
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF WESTERN
AUSTRALIA, HON J. BERINSON,
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL

SERVICES OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Respondents

Letts(5) 1 15/10/92

MASON CJ

BRENNAN J

DEANE J
DAWSON J

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON THURSDAY, 15 OCTOBER 1992, AT 2.33 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Letts?

MR A. LETTS:  In person. The respondents have exercised

jurisdiction over the extent of their delegated

authority far beyond the power that they have

without the consent of the people of Australia, and

that is why I am here. I have put my submissions

in those papers and I have been denied legal

advice. I offered the State Legal Aid Commission

$2000 to provide me a lawyer and they wrote back

and wanted me to apply for legal aid and I had -

under the restrictions of the Legal Aid Commission

I would have had to accept the advice of their

lawyer, of the respondent government, and it would

have meant that this hearing - I would have lost

this hearing, so I could not do that.

I have got $2000 to present my case. If the

Court cannot - the Law Society has tried to find me

a lawyer and because all the lawyers in Western

Australia depend on the Legal Aid Commission for

their living, they are not game to oppose any of

the restrictions that the Legal Aid Commission have

imposed on the granting of legal aid. They have

exercised jurisdiction to restrict the legal rights

of people to equality before the law, and I have

been denied that.

In every case they have - in the supreme court

I went right through the supreme court. Mr Toohey

was the justice that ordered a multitude of

proceedings on me in connection with this. They
are deducting money from my pension at every

pension rise and the authority - they have used the

authority to do so. They claim that they have the

authority because I was convicted, but they are

still - every pension rise they are raising the

deductions.

I was never sentenced to make reparations for

any offence and in my entire career I have only

appeared in the courts on charges laid by the State

police or the Federal Police.	I have never been
prosecuted by a private citizen.	The State police

and the Commonwealth Police have both exercised

jurisdiction over the strength of their delegated

authority to lay charges without the consent of the

Attorney-Generals, and the Attorney-Generals -

like, this charge, particularly, was laid against

me by a detective of the Federal Police. There was

no indictment until five months after he laid the

charge.

The exhibits - they have also exercised

jurisdiction and I would like to find out how -

why - who did it, that the High Court in the

Letts(S) 2 15/10/92

supreme court cases arising from the multitude of proceedings that were enforced on me, the history

of the whole affair since 1956 was put before

Justice Pidgeon of the supreme court and he - the

Australian Attorney-General's representative got up

and told the court the history of it and he

mentioned Justice Gaudron's refusal of the

petition, dismissal of the petition and all that.

During the evidence he gave to

Justice Pidgeon, he admitted that the High Court

had directed the respondents that they need not

enter an appearance before Justice Gaudron, and

that is what happened. There was no appearance of

the opposition and they just did not appear and,
obviously I must have been prejudiced because that
decision - they exercised jurisdiction before the

case was heard, before I even got into court. They

were told they need not appear by the High Court.

I have the copy here.

I have got supreme court proceedings where

Justice Pidgeon asked the questions and he was told

by the solicitor that they had been advised that

they need not appear before Justice Gaudron, and so

it went on. And all my career - it is all

incidental and related to the fact that a State

police officer assumed the jurisdiction himself on

a charge of an indictable offence and issued the
warrant himself, issued the complaint himself, and

it was never authorized by the State Attorney-

General for five months after he had laid the

complaint, and I was arrested and cast into prison

and everything - Justice Toohey, on the application

of the Attorney-General enforced a multitude of

proceedings and the Judiciary Act and the High

Court Act guarantee me equality and avoidance of a multitude of proceedings, and the whole proceedings have arisen from the fact that they were ordered by

Justice Toohey.	And they sent me to inferior
tribunals, administrative tribunals, and every one

of them exercised jurisdiction.

The administrative questions - the questions of law that were asked and the administrative

decisions that were made to enforce a multitude of

proceedings were never reviewed by the domestic

tribunals or the social security tribunal or the

appeals tribunal. They reviewed the conviction and

because I had a conviction, they are still

enforcing the ..... It was never applied for by the

department at the trial; it was never granted. A

justice sentenced me to nine months on the evidence

uncorroborated of a handwriting expert. The

government has never produced one witness that I

ever intended the fraud and the uncorroborated

evidence of the handwriting expert is illegal. In

Letts(5) 3 15/10/92

fact, it was admitted by the trial justice to the

jury - opinion - it was, in fact, an opinion and

the exhibits 1 to 6 that were produced to the

chamber judge, particularly exhibit 6 proved that I

have a legal right to legal aid to maintain

equality before the law.

It was the State that first introduced - the

State Legal Aid Commission Act and the Acts they passed, they were the last - even three or four

years, have all been passed and they have all

attempted to alter the known laws for the

administration of government and justice, all their

Acts and they have been - those Acts.	We have the
Governor-General, he was an atheist.	He was

representing the head of the Church of England and
he has assented to these alterations of the law

over the last four or five years to alter the

Crimes Act and alter the Law Reform Commission Act.

As late as 1991 the Law Reform Commission Act was

reprinted exactly as it was 30 years ago. They

have suspended that and they are trying to alter to

get a republic here to make the Parliament

responsible to the parties and not to the people.

MASON CJ:  Mr Letts, it is not necessary to tell us all this

because we do have the advantage of the written

materials you have given us.

MR LETTS:  I am sorry, sir, I cannot hear you. I am short

of one hearing aid. It was broken the other day. Every alteration to the criminal law - the Crimes Act, the Royal Commission of 1926 decided - they

heard the evidence and it was proclaimed - that Act

was proclaimed by King George to go on - not King George. It was proclaimed by the Royal

Sovereign to exercise jurisdiction for the Royal

Commission to investigate the Constitution and they did that, and they came up with the idea that the

alteration of the Crimes Act was a known law for

the administration of justice.

They came up with the evidence and passed

legislation called the Law Reform Commission Act to

guarantee that any legislation infringing or

intending to infringe on the personal

rights and liberties was beyond the legislative and

executive power. They had no right to do it

without the consent of the people. The referendum

in 1988 rejected the alterations to the Australia

Act that they are now still attempting to infringe

as party policy and it was rejected by the people

of Australia, and the Australian Government has

taken no notice whatever of the referendum result

and they are attempting to push the people into a

republic without the consent of the people of

Australia, and they have never had a reference.

Letts(S) 4 15/10/92

The State government who had one referendum up

until they started the ones for the daylight
saving, on the legal questions of the law they have

only had one referendum here, and they used it to

join - for Western Australia to join the

Commonwealth. Since then the Liberal Party,

Mr Court's government, all the legal aid - they

took over legal aid from them, the Commonwealth.

Legal aid is the responsibility of the

Commonwealth. I can quote from the year book.

MASON CJ:  There is no need to do that. Mr Letts, thank you

for what you have said. We have understood the

case that you have endeavoured to present in the

writing and in what you have said to us orally. I

think you might sit down and we will deal with the

case.

This is an appeal against a decision of

Justice McHugh in which he dismissed an application

by the appellant seeking relief against various

respondents. The principal relief sought was:

"an Order Absolute directed to the Respondents

named in the Application for the Principal

Registrar to accept an issue according to the

known laws of Australia for the administration

of Criminal Justice; of Mandamus: to the

Respondents to administer complete justice to

the Applicant and equality before the law in

the dispute with the Respondents denying the

Applicant's human and legal rights.

And further for Orders that:

A. Attorneys-General observe their duty to make Federal and State Parliaments aware of the dispute to remedy the Applicant's

grievances against the assumption of a

pretended legislative and executive power to

dispense with and suspend the Constitution and

laws of Australia and the Common law;

B. That the exercise of jurisdiction by

successive governments representing different
classes of people over the extent of their

delegated authority to dispense with and

suspend the basic principles of democracy

without the approval of a majority of electors

exceeds the legislative and executive power

and is invalid from the moment of its

inception;

C. That the Respondents observe the human and

legal right of the Applicant to legal aid to

prepare and be represented before the High

Court with a Jury to resolve the dispute over

Letts(S) 5 15/10/92

the delegated legislative and executive

authority and its extent;

D. That the declarations, judgments, doings

and proceedings enforced against the Applicant

are matters justiciable and are questions of

law and fact mandatory for removal to the

original jurisdiction of the High Court Jury.

Mr Letts' complaints appear to relate to his

Crimes
conviction in 1981 for offences against the pensions. Since that date amounts have been

deducted from his pension to recover the moneys

wrongly paid to him.

It appears also that the appellant seeks to

challenge his conviction in 1981 on those offences.

Reference is also made to earlier convictions going back to 1956.

In his reasons for judgment, Justice McHugh

stated that the relationship between the grievances

and the orders which were sought in the application

were not readily apparent to him. The relationship

between the grievances and the orders is no more apparent to us. Having considered what Mr Letts

has said in support of his appeal and the materials

that he has put forward in writing, we are

convinced that the decision of Justice McHugh was

clearly correct. None of the orders sought is an

order that this Court could properly make.

In hearing this appeal, we have extended every leniency to Mr Letts in view of the fact that he

has appeared in person but, as I pointed out, none

of the orders which he seeks is an order that this

Court could properly make.	In the circumstances,
the appeal must be dismissed.

AT 2.55 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Letts(5) 6 15/10/92