Murray v Pinder and Anor - [2020] QSC 385

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murray v Pinder & Anor [2020] QSC 385

PARTIES:

PAUL MICHAEL MURRAY

(applicant)

v

JOSEPH NATHAN LEO PINDER

(first respondent)

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 581 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

4 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2020

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1. Application dismissed.

2. The applicant will pay the respondents’ costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where the applicant was charged with minor offences in the Magistrates Court – where orders were made of an administrative and logistical nature to advance the proceeding – where the applicant complained about how he was named in documents produced for the purpose of the Magistrates Court proceeding – where the applicant complained about the alleged absence of jurisdiction over his “juristic person” – where the applicant brought judicial review proceedings attempting to agitate these complaints before the Supreme Court – whether it is inappropriate to allow the application to continue because it is frivolous or vexatious – whether adequate provision is made for review other than under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 48, s 12

Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252, cited

COUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the first respondent

M C O’Brien (sol) for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the first respondent
Queensland Police Service for the second respondent

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for judicial review pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 1991. It relates to events in the Magistrates Court below in respect of certain relatively minor criminal charges which the applicant is facing. It arises out of, essentially logistical mentions of the matter below before, firstly, Magistrate Browne and subsequently Magistrate Pinder.

The applicant’s approach to the charges below seems to focus upon an argument about how he is named, his inability to defend himself when wrongly named and the alleged absence of jurisdiction over his so called juristic person.

Arguments advanced by self-represented persons about their legal identities are fashionable of late. I note the pursuit of one such argument was recently described in the Court of Appeal in Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252 as an abuse of the court’s process. Part of that argument in that case was described by the President of the Court of Appeal as “gobbledygook”, such is the absence of legitimate legal foundation for some of the theories being pushed in this type of argument lately. It is difficult to tell whether such arguments are pursued in misconceived good faith or are a quite deliberate distraction from the orderly disposition of cases according to law.

I made plain to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Murray v Pinder and Anor

Details

AGLC: Murray v Pinder [2020] QSC 385
Case: [2020] QSC 385
Decision Date: 4 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Murray brought judicial review proceedings against Pinder and another respondent, seeking to challenge the administrative and logistical decisions made by the Magistrates Court in the context of minor offence charges against him. Murray raised complaints about how he was named in documents produced for the proceeding and questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court over his "juristic person". The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Murray's application should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, given that he appeared to challenge decisions that could be reviewed through other means rather than under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

The court considered whether the administrative decisions Murray sought to challenge could be reviewed through other available processes and whether it was appropriate to entertain his application. The court examined whether Murray's complaints about naming and jurisdiction were frivolous or vexatious and whether there were adequate alternative avenues for review. The court held that Murray's application was not only frivolous and vexatious but also that adequate provisions were available for review through other means, negating the need for judicial review under the Act.

Murray's application was dismissed, and the court ordered him to pay the respondents' costs, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that judicial review proceedings are not used to circumvent other review mechanisms and that applications deemed frivolous or vexatious should be appropriately sanctioned.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed.

2. The applicant will pay the respondents’ costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Murray v Pinder & Anor [2020] QSC 385
PARTIES:	PAUL MICHAEL MURRAY (applicant) v JOSEPH NATHAN LEO PINDER (first respondent) QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 581 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	4 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	4 December 2020
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDERS:	1. Application dismissed. 2. The applicant will pay the respondents’ costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where the applicant was charged with minor offences in the Magistrates Court – where orders were made of an administrative and logistical nature to advance the proceeding – where the applicant complained about how he was named in documents produced for the purpose of the Magistrates Court proceeding – where the applicant complained about the alleged absence of jurisdiction over his “juristic person” – where the applicant brought judicial review proceedings attempting to agitate these complaints before the Supreme Court – whether it is inappropriate to allow the application to continue because it is frivolous or vexatious – whether adequate provision is made for review other than under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 48, s 12 Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf No appearance for the first respondent M C O’Brien (sol) for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the first respondent Queensland Police Service for the second respondent