Mathews, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file

[2023] HCATrans 9

[2023] HCATrans 009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B1 of 2023

In the matter of -

an application by RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS for leave to issue or file

GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2023, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   Pursuant to rules 6.07.3 and 13.03.1, I refuse the application for leave to issue or file the proposed application for a writ of summons.  I publish my reasons and I direct that those reasons be incorporated into the transcript.

The order of the Court is:

The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the writ of summons is refused.

I publish that order.

On 6 January 2023, the applicant made an ex parte application for leave to issue or file a writ of summons under r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant dated 21 December 2022. Leave is required because, on 4 January 2023, Edelman J directed that pursuant to r 6.07.2 the writ of summons was not to be issued or filed without leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant.

Leave to issue or file a document will ordinarily be refused on an application under r 6.07.3 where the document sought to be issued or filed appears “on its face” to be an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court: Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [11]; 376 ALR 567 at 570. Implicit in the requirement that a document the subject of the application be considered “on its face” is that the application falls to be determined without an oral hearing: Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [12]; 376 ALR 567 at 570, citing Re Simmonds [2020] HCATrans 34.

The proposed writ of summons names the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland as defendants.  Elsewhere the writ indicates the intended defendants to be the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland and the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia.

By the proposed writ the applicant seeks an “effective remedy” pursuant to article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).  The relief sought is not specifically identified, but rather is described as “including compensation for unlawful arrest and detention, compensatory damages, punitive damages, compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, public apologies, guarantees of non-repetition and changes in relevant laws and practices”.  The relief is sought in connection with claimed violations of the ICCPR, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The relief sought, and the said basis for that relief, is unintelligible. The proposed writ discloses a large number of disparate complaints. These include that a number of unrelated criminal charges laid against the applicant have been “induced or affected by fraud”, that the applicant has been attacked by public officials affected by “catholic corruption”, that various search warrants were ultra vires, that he has been denied his right to freedom of expression, that he was assaulted by Queensland traffic officers, that one city council committed armed robbery upon the applicant, and that another city council improperly prosecuted the applicant for putting up signs.  It refers to a number of unrelated court proceedings involving the applicant, with various allegations about errors and improper conduct, including that he cannot receive an effective remedy in the Federal Court of Australia because of “the catholic corruption in the government”.  There are many more complaints.

The proposed writ of summons and supporting affidavit do not articulate a cause of action.  The documents fail on their face to disclose a credible basis for this Court to consider any of the complaints made therein.  To the extent that the applicant complains about errors in judgments delivered by other courts in other proceedings, the proposed writ naming as defendants the Commonwealth and Queensland – which were not necessarily parties to the complained of proceedings – is not the vehicle by which those errors can or should be addressed.  The application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the Court’s process.  Accordingly, I refuse leave to issue or file the document.

The order of the Court will be:

The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the writ of summons is refused.

The Court will now adjourn until 9.45 am.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED