Letts v The Commonwealth of Australia

[1991] HCATrans 304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Perth No P32 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

ARTHUR LETTS

Applicant

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

Application for various orders

Letts(4) 1 24/10/91

MCHUGH J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 1991, AT 2.15 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:  Yes? You are Mr Letts?

MR A. LETTS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  How is your hearing?

MR LETTS: It is very bad, Your Honour, but I have got the

two hearing aids; I think I can hear you all right.

HIS HONOUR: Right. Well, I will raise my voice. If you

cannot hear me, let me know.

MR LETTS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Just excuse me, I will just read this.

Mr Letts, there are some matters in your document

which I do not understand. Could I ask you some

questions about it, please?

MR LETTS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  You seek an order absolute against:

The Director of Social Security - - -

MR LETTS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR:	to cease assuming a power of jurisdiction over
the extent of his delegated authority under the Social Security Act to override a judicial decision of no reparation at my trial as conviction of an indictable offence.

What do you mean by that?

MR LETTS: Well, when I was tried and convicted I was

sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

HIS HONOUR: What year was that?

MR LETTS: In 1981, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  1981, yes.

MR LETTS:  And verdict of the judge: there was no

reparation, nine months imprisonment, and after I

came out of prison Social Security wrote and sent

me a notice that because I had been convicted they
were claiming $7000 that I was supposed to have got

from them by deductions from my pension and ever

since they have been deducting every time there is

a pension raise. They increased deductions from my

pension and they make a fresh decision, without any

court order and just simply an administrative

decision that they have the right to increase the

deductions from my pension and the original

decision by an official of the Social Security

Letts(4) 2 24/10/91

Department was beyond his authority, because he had

no authority, no jurisdiction in a criminal case

and he has no jurisdiction whatever over the extent

of this authority, Your Honour; neither do the

police department for issuing the complaint in the

first place.

HIS HONOUR: 

He seems to have been recovering, on behalf of

the Commonwealth, moneys which have been wrongly
paid to you.

MR LETTS: 

Your Honour, they tried me for getting two

pensions and the only evidence against me was an

opinion of a single handwriting expert, and the

judge accepted that and it went up to a jury

although it was only a single opinion, and because

of that opinion he convicted me because the man was

a qualified expert, but it was entirely against the

law, because it was never corroborated. And on top

of that, the complaint was made by a police

officer, without the consent of the

Attorney-General in the first place, and it was an

indictable offence and the Federal Police made it

on their own authority two days after I decided to

appeal against my conviction.

HIS HONOUR: Well, did you appeal against your conviction?

MR LETTS: I went to the criminal court in Perth - this is

really the crux of the matter. I went to the

Criminal Court of Appeal and they dismissed my

appeal and from Fremantle gaol I put in an appeal

with a case in writing the same as I have done

today. The Registrar of the High Court wrote and

told my that I had no right to appeal, no right

whatever, and being in gaol I could not appear or

argue the case, and under the law, Your Honour, the

High Court of Australia Rules - I think it is Order

70 rule 32 I have the right of appeal. There is no

authority whatever for the Registrar of the strength of his authority.

Your Honour, the appeal was never heard by the

High Court; it was simply dismissed and ever since

I have taken action. When they started deducting

from my pension I went through the Federal Court

trying to get at it that way, over the deduction of
the pension, and the case was heard by the Federal

Court and on the wishes of the respondents the judge ordered me to go through all the subordinate

tribunals and then come back to the Federal Court

and he enforced a multitude of proceedings on me,

contrary to the Constitution laws and he denied me

complete justice. That Justice, Your Honour, is

now a Judge of the High Court. The domestic

tribunals, the Social Security tribunal and the

Letts(4) 3 24/10/91

Administrative Appeals Tribunal do not have authority to hear criminal cases and the - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is what they have been set up to do.

MR LETTS:  The fact that the Department is still deducting

from my pension is entirely - they claim their

authority to deduct that because I was convicted

and my appeal was stopped by the Principal

Registrar, Your Honour, which is the reason he was

in the original list of respondents. I have been

right through the tribunals, back to the Federal

Court to the Full Court of the Federal Court and to

the High Court trying -

HIS HONOUR:	But you have made a number of applications to the High Court.
MR LETTS:	Yes, Your Honour. They were all a multiplicity

proceedings entirely enforced by the decision of

Judge Toohey in 1983, and the section 32 of the

Judiciary Act has brought into the statute law that the judges do not have the authority to deny

complete justice. They are compelled by that

section to render complete justice and they are not

allowed to enforce a multitude of proceedings,

which is what occurred to me, and the whole thing

has all sprung up from the convictions. I have

been fighting this case and my convictions since

1956 - have all been on the complaints of a police

office who has no authority - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Do you not think, Mr Letts, that it is time

that you got on with your life and forgot about

these convictions and these other matters.

MR LETTS: That is what I am trying to do, Your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Letts, I have studied the papers.

MR LETTS:  I appreciate that, Your Honour, but the whole

thing is that the politicians of Australia have

exceeded to the requests of the police force and

the Crown Law Department to make laws that have

destroyed the basic principles of the Westminster

systems of government and justice, both by making

different elective laws and by enforcing - all my
convictions, all my life, Your Honour, have been

that - - -

HIS HONOUR:  You mean your criminal convictions or your

political convictions?

MR LETTS:  No, my criminal convictions, Your Honour. They

have all been caused - I have been charged on every

occasion with intend to defraud and intend to

defraud is a state of mind. I was working in the

Letts(4) 4 24/10/91

bush and I had a partner, and I gave them authority

to collect all the money from my contacts. I built

the concrete wall -

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Letts, these matters have been dealt

with, have they not, at your trials? I studied
your papers and none of the orders that you seek

are within the jurisdiction of this Court and

nothing that you have said so far or put before me

in writing indicate that you have any grounds for

relief in this Court. Now, I do not want to stop

you developing any relevant argument, but I have in

the list an application for bail by somebody who is

presently in prison and it is important that that

matter be heard this afternoon. Now, is there

anything further that you want to put to me.

MR LETTS: Well only, Your Honour, I want to apply for the

fees I have been charged in this case to be waived,

because it is all a criminal case - the whole thing

is based on a criminal law - and I have had orders -

when the case was started and I went before the

Federal Court, they waived the fees for me,

Your Honour; I did not have to pay any fees and

every occasion since I have never had to pay fees.

In this case, before the Registrar would file this

case - enter it - I had to pay a fee of $300.	I
would ask that be waived.

HIS HONOUR: Well, part of the reason for requiring that

fees be paid is that it goes towards the

administrative expenses and the hearing of this

application costs money; it costs money in a number

of ways.

MR LETTS:  Your Honour, I have a copy of the Federal Court

order that fees be waived here if you need it or I

can send it to you.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Letts, in the exercise in my

discretion, I may well order the fees be waived in

this case, but I want you to understand that so far

as I am concerned, if you bring any further

applications you will not get any fees waived unless

you make a compelling case, and the fact that you

are a pensioner will not itself be enough.

MR LETTS:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	On this occasion I am prepared to waive the

filing fees. Orders have been made by me waiving

fees in similar cases recently in Sydney. Now, is

there anything further that you wish to say?

MR LETTS:  Your Honour, I understand the proceedings were to

be recorded and I see they have not been. This is what has gone on on every occasion I have appeared

Letts(4) 24/10/91

before a court, they have refused, the Registrar or

whoever is responsible, the opposition, and they

have denied me complete justice right through.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Letts, the proceedings are being

recorded. If you look over your left shoulder you

will see that the proceedings are being recorded.

MR LETTS:  Oh I beg your pardon, Your Honour. Yes, oh well

that is satisfactory. Well, what I came here for

was to get the matter removed to the Full Court of
the High Court with the jury, because there has been

a dispute with the respondents since 1956 and the

articles of Magna Carta laid down, and I understand

they are still in force in Australia and I have laid

down that in a case of a dispute it is mandatory

that it go before a Full Court, the only court

entitled to decide constitutional issues, and this

case has been a constitutional issue right from 1956

and they - on the questions of law, I desire to go

to the High Court. On the questions of fact - - -

HIS HONOUR:  But so far as 1956 matters are concerned, I

notice from the transcript before Justice Kennedy in

1981 that you did not seek to appeal against one of

your convictions for over 20 years.

MR LETTS:  Your Honour, I have been trying to for 20 years;

when I came out of Fremantle gaol I was a cripple.

I could not get work; I had to do what I could for myself and I started demolition contracting and I
managed to get going on that until eventually I was

back and it was not until the 1980s, Your Honour,

that I got the opportunity to reopen the case and go

on with it.

From 1966 until 1980 I had no opportunity and

it was a decision of the High Court in 1980 that

gave me the idea or the opportunity to reopen the

case and that is what I went on from, Your Honour.

That was in the case of Howe v The Police Force and

he won the case and the principle adopted by the

time was that the justice who should have been

astute to perceive that he had a case and the said

court had convicted him and they ruled that -

Sir Francis Burt was Chief Justice. He should have

been astute to perceive that the man had a defence

to the assault charge against - and they upheld his

case and it is on the strength of that is why I

started the multiplicity proceedings. Two days

after I put the first application into the court to

reopen it, they laid the charge against me of

getting two pensions, the Federal Police.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, you were convicted of that. Now,

Mr Letts - - -

Letts(4) 6 24/10/91

MR LETTS:  I put the affidavit into the Court of

Criminal Appeal in Perth and I had written to the

Attorney-General and he had promised me that he would have a look at the case and send it back to

the supreme court to review and two days later the
Federal Court came and arrested me on a charge of
getting two pensions. And the Constitution of

Australia says, section 73, that regulations cannot

be used to deny access to a court and on every

occasion right through the three courts,

Your Honour, the Principal Registrar and the

Attorney-Generals have used regulations to deny me

access to all the courts.	I have got access and
not one court has looked at the issues there.	They

have simply said that they never had the power to

deal with it.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, well that is what I propose to say in this

case. Now, Mr Letts -

MR LETTS:  Would you pardon me, Your Honour - but they have

the power.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Letts, would you please resume your seat. I

have listened to you; I am certain that there is

nothing that you can say that will usefully advance

the matter. I propose to give a very short

judgment, which you can hear and that will be the end of the proceedings and I propose to waive the

fees. Now would you please resume your seat.

MR LETTS:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	This is an application by Mr Arthur Letts

seeking relief against various respondents.	The
principal relief sought is:

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. Attorney-Generals 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;

Letts(4) 24/10/91

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

the delegated legislative and executive

authority and its extent;

D. That the declarations, judgments, doings

and proceedings enforced against the Applicant

are matters justiciable are questions of law

and fact mandatory for removal to the original

jurisdiction of the High Court Jury.

It is clear that none of the orders sought are

orders that this Court could make and the Court has

no jurisdiction in the matter. The basis of

Mr Letts' complaints appears to be that in 1981 he

was convicted of offences against the Commonwealth

Crimes Act

in relation to obtaining two pensions. of Social Services, or the Director of Social

Services, has deducted from his pension some amount

of money in reparation for moneys wrongly paid to the applicant. It also appears that Mr Letts, in

some way, seeks to challenge his conviction in 1981

and, perhaps also, earlier convictions going back

to 1956.

Just exactly what is the relationship between

his grievances and the orders which he seeks is not
readily apparent to me, but I do not propose to

analyse the claims any further. It is sufficient

to say that the application is misconceived and

must be dismissed.

Mr Letts, who is an old-age pensioner, having been born in 1906, has paid $300 for the filing

fee. He asks that I exercise my discretion under

the rules and order that the payment of that fee be waived and the moneys returned to him. I so order,

but I wish to make it plain to him that if, on a

future occasion, he should bring another

application then the mere fact that he is an

old-age pensioner will not, by itself, be

sufficient to ground a successful application for

the waiver of the fees.

Letts(4) 8 24/10/91

The orders sought in the application are

refused. I order that the fee paid in respect of

the application be waived and returned to Mr Letts.

MR LETTS:  I give notice of appeal against your decision and

I will take the matter further.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Letts.
MR LETTS:	And I will be able to get the transcript of the

proceedings?

HIS HONOUR:	It will be available, no doubt, upon payment of the proper fee.
MR LETTS:	Thank you.

AT 2.45 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Letts(4) 24/10/91