Pauline Hanson's One Nation v Sharples and Anor B86/2002

[2003] HCATrans 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B86 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

PAULINE HANSON’S ONE NATION

Applicant

and

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES

First Respondent

DESMON J. O’SHEA

Second Respondent

Application for stay

HEYDON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON MONDAY, 23 JUNE 2003, AT 11.03 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D. ETTRIDGE appeared in person, on behalf of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

MR T.P. SHARPLES appeared in person.

MR B.G. CAMPBELL:   May it please the Court, I appear for the Director of Public Prosecutions for Queensland.  (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)

MS T.L. JACKSON:   Your Honour, I appear for the Electoral Commissioner of Queensland.  (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland) 

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Ettridge, I have your summons.  You filed two affidavits.  Which of them do you wish to rely on?

MR ETTRIDGE:   The supplementary, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   I see.  That is the one filed on 30 ‑ ‑ ‑

MR ETTRIDGE:   It is a little more expansive.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, very well.  Is there any objection to any part of that affidavit?

MS JACKSON:   No, your Honour.

MR CAMPBELL:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Very well, I have read that and I have read the exhibits to it.  For the sake of the record exhibit DWE1 and exhibit DWE2 to that affidavit will be received as exhibits with those exhibit markings.

MR ETTRIDGE:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   And that is the totality of your evidence?

MR ETTRIDGE:   No, your Honour.  I have also produced another document, which I have handed up, which is a compilation of evidence provided by the DPP or the police in the criminal trial, plus some other research material which consists of relevant or appropriate pages of Hansard from 1992.

HIS HONOUR:   Just quickly looking through it, I think we start off with the summons and then we have a page from the Federal Court of Australia practice, then I think we have DWE1 and DWE2.

MR ETTRIDGE:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   Then from the yellow page that you have marked “5” onwards, what do we have?  We have a one‑page document signed by yourself and two other people involving “Resolutions of the meeting to form a political party” and then we have the application that Mr O’Shea acceded to, I take it.

MR ETTRIDGE:   No, that one is the federal application for a party ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   I see.

MR ETTRIDGE:    ‑ ‑ ‑ because I want to make comparisons between that and the one that is submitted to the Queensland ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Right.  Then there is a document of 10 October 2001 headed “AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION LIST OF REGISTERED PARTIES”.

MR ETTRIDGE:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   Then we have the Electoral Act 1992 of Queensland, some parts.

MR ETTRIDGE:   Yes, extracts of it.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, and we have section 70 of the Electoral Act 1992.  What is the document that is headed “Section 287”?

MR ETTRIDGE:   That is a print from the web page of the Australian Electoral Commission that shows that Pauline Hanson – or the results of the voting in the electorate of Oxley, as I do make reference to that in my verbal submissions.

HIS HONOUR:   Right.  Which election was that?

MR ETTRIDGE:   1996.

HIS HONOUR:   Right, and then the next thing is headed “Section 287”. 

MR ETTRIDGE:   That is an extract from the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and in the centre of that is reference to “State branch” which I will also refer to.

HIS HONOUR:   Right.  Then we have a second reading speech of 19 May 1992 by Mr Beanland.  That relates to section 70, presumably, does it?

MR ETTRIDGE:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   And other Hansard material.  The document dated 15 October 1997, that is the actual application that Mr O’Shea acceded to, is it?

MR ETTRIDGE:   Yes, at No 16.  I put an additional copy of the federal application in there, just so that you did not have to go backwards in the documents.

HIS HONOUR:   Very well.  Now, I think I generally understand the contents of the folder.  Some of that is evidentiary material, some of it is material capable of being used to support an argument.  I should ask the other parties, do they object to Mr Ettridge relying on the contents of that bundle?

MR CAMPBELL:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Very well.  I think that concludes your evidence.  You do not ‑ ‑ ‑

MR ETTRIDGE:   No, well, I have a verbal submission.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, but does any other party wish to tender any evidence?  Very well.  Mr Ettridge, it is customary in – yes, Mr Sharples, you have anything to tender?

MR SHARPLES:   Sorry, your Honour.  Yes, there is an affidavit that I would like to tender to the Court sworn by myself of today.

HIS HONOUR:   Have you filed it?

MR SHARPLES:   I have not filed it, your Honour.  I did not really get the material from Mr Ettridge until some short time ago.

HIS HONOUR:   Right.  Have you copies for the other parties?

MR SHARPLES:   I have supplied them with copies, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Have you one for the Court?

MR SHARPLES:   I have supplied two.

HIS HONOUR:   Right. 

MR SHARPLES:   It is a two‑page affidavit with four exhibits.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Does any other party object to either the filing or the reception of that affidavit in evidence?

MS JACKSON:  Your Honour, as I mentioned, I appear for the Electoral Commissioner.  I have only just received a copy of this affidavit this morning and, in particular, the contents of paragraphs 11 and 12 are of great concern to my client, because there is an allegation of official corruption with respect to files withheld from Mr Sharples.  This is an allegation he has raised previously in the Supreme Court, but it has not been adjudicated on.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  He refers to annexures “C” and “D”.  I am just trying to track them down.  I think paragraphs 11 and 12 are inadmissible, Mr Sharples.  The affidavit will be received with the exception of paragraphs 11 and 12.

MS JACKSON:   Thank you, your Honour.

MR CAMPBELL:   And, your Honour, I was going to make the objection that really it is irrelevant to the current application.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, there is a lot of force in that, but I think we might just admit it subject to relevance and see what happens.

MR CAMPBELL:   Thank you.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Ettridge, I think that completes the evidence.  It is customary in this type of application for each party to have 20 minutes to address the Court.  I have read, I think, all the evidentiary material that you have tendered, so you are at liberty to structure your submissions around that time limit.

MR ETTRIDGE:   Would you like me to commence?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, certainly.

MR ETTRIDGE:   Thank you, your Honour.  I am the applicant in the matter B86 of 2002 in the High Court, a matter for which a hearing date is yet to be allocated.  I am also a defendant in a Queensland District Court action which is set down for trial on July 14 2003.  This is matter No 00146/00.

I am today making application for the High Court to stay the proceedings in the Queensland District Court until my application No B86 of 2002 has been heard and ruled upon by the High Court.  I say that the Queensland District Court to proceed with the trial before the High Court has ruled on my application is oppressive, vexatious and useless and is not in my best interests, nor is it in the best interests of justice.

The basis for my seeking an injunction arises under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 point 32,955.60 under the heading “Concurrent state and federal proceedings”, the extract page of which is in the folder handed up. I say there is no case to answer in the Brisbane District Court and that the proceeding is politically motivated and only serves to abuse and undermine the independence of the court.

On 17 December and on January 16 2003, I made a pre‑trial hearing section 592A application to Justice Hoath of the Brisbane District Court for a stay of proceedings in the District Court.  My application was refused by Justice Hoath in his judgment of indictment 2949 of 2002 at page 8 line 20 and through to page 9 line 50.  The relevant pages of Justice Hoath’s ruling are contained in the folder.  This is why I seek a stay through the High Court.

I quote the following cases which deal with the right of the High Court to stay proceedings in a lower court.

HIS HONOUR:   I think you need not worry too much about that.  The High Court certainly has a right to stay proceedings, but is there anything in the cases that is of particular utility, from your point of view, in this case?  Is there anything particularly helpful, from your point of view, in the cases?

MR ETTRIDGE:   In those cases?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ETTRIDGE:   Well, I think they just support the fact that the High Court can do so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Very well.  Yes.

MR ETTRIDGE:   I also say I am a person entitled to bring this application to the High Court because I am one of the three persons found by the Queensland Court of Appeal in appeal No 7592 of 1999, Supreme Court No 6318 of 1998, to be a member of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party.  Civil litigation was commenced in the Queensland courts against Pauline Hanson and all members of the One Nation party.

I am one of the founding members and a copy of the agreement to form the party is in the folder handed up.  I was also the federal secretary of the One Nation party from its inception in February 1997 until February of 2000.  This is the period of relevance.  Evidence of me being the party secretary is in the folder.

I submit that I have a right to make this application because I am a person greatly affected by the decisions of the Queensland courts and this matter has never been put before the High Court and it is a matter that can be settled by the High Court. 

The next document in the folder is a copy of the registration of political parties from the Australian Electoral Commission.  The One Nation party was registered federally as a parliamentary party on June 26 1997, and as such only required one member, a member of Parliament.  At that time Pauline Hanson was the Federal member for Oxley and she agreed to allow her name to be used for the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party’s parliamentary registration.

At no stage has the federal registration of the party ever been challenged for its legitimacy.  The Queensland Electoral Act 1992 says in section 70(2), and I quote:

The application must only be made for the registration of a registrable political party.

When we look at the Act for a definition of a “registrable political party”, section 4 of the Act says:

“registrable political party” means a political party that‑

(a)  either‑

(i)  is a parliamentary party; or

(ii)  has at least 500 members who are electors –

Subsection (1) does not say Queensland parliamentary party because there is a separate and different definition of a Queensland parliamentary party in the Act.  When we look at the definition in the Queensland Act of what a parliamentary party is, the Act says:

“parliamentary party” means a political party of which at least 1 member is a member of an Australian parliament.

This definition is very similar to the Commonwealth legislation as it was in 1997 and up until the year 2000, and it is the Commonwealth Act upon which the Queensland Act is based.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation qualified for registration in Queensland under section 70(2) of the Queensland Act.  It was a federally registered parliamentary party which had been registered in June 1997 with the Australian Electoral Commission and the party had the required sitting member of Parliament who, in fact, was an elected Queensland member of Parliament.  Section 70(4)(d) of the Act says:

if the application is for a Queensland parliamentary party‑set out the name of 1 member of the party who is a member of the Legislative Assembly –

and what is interesting there is the word “if” appears and I wonder what did the drafters of the legislation mean when they wrote “if”.  Does “if” mean if your application is for a Queensland parliamentary party instead of a Federal parliamentary party as referred to in section 70(2)?  The word “if” clearly suggests optional.  The Federal Act does not say “if”.  The word “if” creates ambiguity and opens the possibility for a different kind of interpretation.

For example, a parliamentary party such as provided for in section 70(2) which makes it very clear that Federal parliamentary parties do qualify for registration when cross‑referenced back to the definition of a registrable party, section 70(4)(d) must include parliamentary parties as defined in section 70(2) of the Act.

It cannot exclude registrable parties as defined in subsection (2) of the Act without being incompetent legislation.  I am going to read that again in case that is not clear.  When you look at the definition of a registrable party under 70(4)(d), it must include parliamentary parties as defined in subsection (2) and that is section 70(2) of the Act.

So it cannot exclude something that previously in the same section, 70, has been declared a registrable party.  If the Crown want to read section 70(4)(d) differently to section 70(2), then they are admitting the two sections contradict each other and that is incompetent legislation.  If the Queensland Act sought to exclude Federal or State members of Parliament as persons eligible to apply for parliamentary party registration then it should have said so in section 70(2).

I say that section 70(4)(d) is simply a minimum qualification and that a Queensland Federal parliamentary party and a Queensland Federal member of Parliament exceed a Queensland State Parliament and a Queensland State member of Parliament.  Therefore, the Pauline Hanson One Nation party and Pauline herself qualified with the Queensland Act.  If the Act did not anticipate parliamentary parties with State or Federal members, why is there a definition of a “parliamentary party” in the Act and a further specific qualifying clause, being section 70(2), which says that applications must only be made by registrable political parties?

Pauline Hanson was and is an elector in Queensland.  She resided in Queensland.  She was a Federal member of Parliament and had received 33,960 primary votes, 48 per cent of the votes counted in Oxley, and far more than the minimum 500 votes needed to register a political party in Queensland.

The Federal parliamentary party also had more than 1,200 persons who were electors of Queensland on its membership register and it was those names which were submitted to the Queensland Electoral Commission as members to comply with the 500 members test as required under the Queensland Electoral Act.

The point is that the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party only ever needed one member to qualify for registration in Queensland and that was Queensland Federal member of Parliament, Pauline Hanson.  It did not, at any stage, need 500 members to qualify for registration.  The Electoral Commission of Queensland application form did not provide for an applicant to identify what type of application was being sought, and that could easily have been done with a number of boxes where one ticked what kind of application we were seeking.

However, the Commonwealth application form to the Australian Electoral Commission does do that and the Queensland Act, sections 70(2) and (4)(d) and (e), were both required to be met, so the application made by Pauline Hanson was correct.

Your Honour knows that under section 109 of the Constitution where there is any inconsistency between State and Federal law then the Federal law overrides State law. I say that the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland has misunderstood the Queensland Electoral Act and that there is no justification for charges for a criminal trial.  The charges are vexatious and oppressive and should not proceed until the High Court has heard this matter.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party was simply seeking to register its Queensland State branch as provided for in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 at section 287 clause 1 and that was so the party could contest State elections. The registration sought in Queensland was a Queensland State branch of a federally registered parliamentary party and as such qualified for registration in Queensland under the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 under section 70(2) and again under section 70(4)(d) and (e).  It is clear that a parliamentary party applicant was a legal and acceptable entity for registration in Queensland under section 70(2) of the Act.

When you look at the intent of the Queensland Parliament, Hansard of 19 May 1992 is clear at page 5276, sixth line down, at the second reading in the Queensland Parliament when the member for Toowong, Mr Beanland, said:

Because this State is changing to the Federal system‑and only because of that fact –

and then there were several references made during the second reading of the legislation to it being modelled upon the Federal legislation.  Mr Beanland says at page 5279:

The Bill provides for the registration of political parties and candidates.  This approach, which has been followed for some time in the Federal sphere, is long overdue in this State. 

Mr Beattie, the current Premier, says in Hansard, page 5277 on 19 May 1992, quoting from the Fitzgerald report page 127:

“A fundamental tenet of the established system of parliamentary democracy is that public opinion is given effect by regular, free, fair elections following open debate.

A Government in our political system which achieves office by means other than free and fair elections lacks legitimate political authority over that system.  This must affect the ability of Parliament to play its proper role in the way referred to in this report.”

On page 5279 Mr Beattie also says:

The Bill provides for the registration of political parties and candidates.  This approach, which has been followed for some time in the Federal sphere, is long overdue in this State.

I say that it is clear that the drafting of the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 was intended to mimic the Federal system.  However, the Queensland Act is inconsistent with the Federal Act in section 70, which deals with party registration, and section 70 is incompetent.  Section 70(2) contradicts section 70(4)(d) of the Act.  Section 70(2) says that a registrable party is a parliamentary party which is defined as a party with a sole member being a State or Federal MP and section 70(4)(d) says “a Queensland parliamentary party” which is defined as “a member of the Legislative Assembly” of Queensland.  As such it is incompetent.

I now refer to section 70(4) and clauses (a) to (g).  All of these clauses are joined by the word “and” which in clear English means in addition.  Therefore, all clauses are compulsory and not optional.  The word “or” is not used to join any of these clauses to imply that an applicant has any choice.  All clauses must be complied with.

By contrast, in the definition, section 4 of the Act under the definition “registrable political party”, the word “or” is used, to clearly show that a choice is available between registering a parliamentary party or a party with 500 members.  This contradicts the use of the word “and” which links the subclauses (d) and (e) in section 70 and increases the argument that the Act is incompetent.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 at section 126 under application for registration uses simple language describing how to register a new political party. Subclauses are rarely joined by the word “and” or the word “or”. The current drafting of the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 at section 70 requires an applicant to be both a Queensland parliamentary party and a party with 500 members.

The one‑page application form provided by the Queensland Electoral Commission does not provide for an applicant to identify what type of application is being made.  The description of a parliamentary party does not appear on it, nor does any reference to the application being for a non‑parliamentary party.  There is no box to tick to say the applicant is choosing between a parliamentary application or an application of 500 members, whereas the form provided by the Australian Electoral Commission federally does.  The Queensland application form is consistent with the way the Act has been written where both of the requirements of section 70(d) and (e) must be met.

The conclusion must be drawn that the Queensland Electoral Commission wanted both sections (d) and (e) to be complied with or, alternatively, that the Queensland Electoral Commission was going to administratively decide what type of application was being made.  By contrast the four pages supplied by the Australian Electoral Commission to register federally are quite clear and distinguish between a parliamentary application and an application with members.  There is no confusion with their forms.  They provide spaces where you can tick boxes for clarity.

The Queensland Act at section 70 is incompetent and confusing.  It is unsafe to proceed to charge and then judge someone with breaches that result from poorly drafted legislation.  It is against public policy to proceed

with a trial which has been brought about by political persecution and incompetent legislation. Also, section 109 of the Australian Constitution provides that where there is such an inconsistency the Federal law shall prevail.

I say that, contrary to what Parliament intended and believed, there is an inconsistency between the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the State Electoral Act.  I say that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party complied with Federal law and it also complied with the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 as a registrable political party under section 70(2).  The party only needed one member to qualify for registration.

The application to the Electoral Commissioner of Queensland was made in the handwriting of Pauline Hanson who was a sitting Federal member at the time.  She lodged the application in person with the Queensland Electoral Commissioner.  The party for which registration was sought was named after Pauline Hanson.  The only member required for the registration was the person who actually made the application, a Queensland member of Parliament, Pauline Hanson.  This made the Pauline Hanson One Nation party, because of Pauline’s residence in Queensland – it made it a Queensland parliamentary party.

I also draw the Court’s attention to the application enclosed in the folder which was submitted to the Queensland Supreme Court in matter 6318 of 1998.  This is dated 15 October 2001.  It is an application for a mistrial by the plaintiff in that matter, Mr Terry Sharples, who is on the bench here today.  In the enclosed application Mr Sharples, who was the successful plaintiff in the matter judged by her Honour Justice Atkinson, claimed that the result in Justice Atkinson’s court had been achieved by fraud, deliberate withholding of evidence, conspiracy and perjury.  Mr Sharples tried several times to bring about a mistrial and this is just another of the series of dysfunctions that have characterised this particular trial and matter.

It is ridiculous to have a criminal trial proceed and to waste the time of the judge, the court staff, jurors, counsel, the prosecutor and the defendants for such a weak and vexatious case.  I respectfully request that this High Court hearing grant my application for a stay of the Queensland District Court proceeding No 00146/00 so the matter should not proceed until my application No B86 of 2002 to the High Court for a no case to answer has been heard.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Ettridge.

The summons filed on 16 May 2003 seeks an order staying proceedings in the District Court at Brisbane No 146/00.  It is said that these proceedings are due to commence on 14 July 2003.  The stay is sought until matter No B86 of 2002 in this Court is decided.  That matter is an application for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland Court of Appeal No 7592 of 1999 given on 30 September 2002.

The factual background is as follows.  On 15 October 1997, Pauline Hanson lodged with the Electoral Commissioner, Desmond J. O’Shea, an application to register a party known as “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation” under the Electoral Act 1992 of Queensland.  Section 70(4)(e) required that:

if the application is for a party that is not a Queensland parliamentary party . . . the names and addresses of 500 members of the party who –

were Queensland electors had to be set out.  The application was apparently accompanied by a list of more than 1,000 persons said to be members.

On 4 December 1997, Mr O’Shea registered the party.  On 18 August 1999, Atkinson J, in proceedings No 6318 of 1998 in the Supreme Court of Queensland brought by Terry Patrick Sharples, found that the decision to register Pauline Hanson’s One Nation under the Electoral Act was “induced by fraud or misrepresentation”.  She ordered that the decision be set aside.  She further ordered that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation was not entitled to registration as a political party in Queensland on the ground, to use her words, that “it did not satisfy the requirement of section 70 of the Electoral Act 1992”.  The requirement in question was that set out in section 70(4)(e).

Atkinson J found that Pauline Hanson knew that the party was not entitled to registration as a political party when she applied for registration.  The first defendant in the proceedings before Atkinson J was Mr O’Shea.  The second defendant was Pauline Lee Hanson as representative of herself and all members of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. 

Pauline Hanson, by notice of appeal dated 20 August 1999, appealed against Atkinson J’s orders. The file number of that appeal was 7592 of 1999. On 10 March 2000, the Court of Appeal, consisting of de Jersey CJ and McMurdo P and Helman J, dismissed the appeal, [2000] QCA 23.

On 6 April 2000, Pauline Hanson filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court against the Court of Appeal’s orders of 10 March 2000, No B26 of 2000.  On 14 December 2000, she filed a notice of discontinuance of that application.  On 11 March 2002, David William Ettridge filed in the Queensland Court of Appeal an “application to set aside judgment”.  The file number of that application was 2308 of 2002.

The judgment which he wished to have set aside was the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 10 March 2002. On 30 September 2002, the Court of Appeal, consisting of Davies JA, Helman and Jones JJ, struck out the application with costs, [2002] QCA 395. The Court of Appeal did so on the ground that the judgment of 10 March 2000 had been perfected, the proceedings had been finally disposed of and there was no basis for departing from the general principle that proceedings should not be reinstated for the purpose of considering a further appeal.

On 28 October 2002, Mr Ettridge filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court against the Court of Appeal judgment of 30 September 2002.  The stay application relates to indictment No 2949 of 2002.  By that indictment, Mr Ettridge and Ms Hanson have been charged with dishonestly inducing the Electoral Commissioner to register Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as a political party by submitting an application claiming that the party had 500 members when it did not.

By a document dated 27 November 2002, Mr Ettridge sought a stay of the prosecution in the District Court, pending determination of the application for special leave to appeal to this Court which, as indicated above, he had filed on 28 October 2002.  On 20 January 2003, Judge Hoath of the Queensland District Court refused various applications by Mr Ettridge, one of which was that application.

Mr Ettridge contends that a stay should be granted, pending the hearing of the special leave application and the hearing of the appeal if special leave were granted.  He does so on the ground that if the District Court proceedings which are due to commence on 14 July 2003 proceed, time and expense will be wasted and on the ground that when the High Court appeal succeeds there will be no case to answer in the District Court.

He said that the District Court proceedings were oppressive, vexatious and useless.  He advanced numerous arguments which might be said to go to the merits of his defence in the criminal prosecution.  Those arguments centred on the construction of section 70 in the light of the facts affecting Ms Hanson’s career over the past few years.  Those arguments may or may not be valid.  However, it is not necessary for present purposes to set them out or analyse them.

The reason why this Court grants stays is so that the integrity of an application for special leave is preserved without destruction by the proceedings which an applicant desires to stay.  It follows that the prospects of success in the special leave application are relevant.  The prospects that special leave will be granted to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s orders of 30 September 2002 are so small, because of the strength of the ground advanced by the Court of Appeal, that it would not be appropriate to grant a stay.

A further matter is this.  Even if special leave were to be granted, the appeal were to succeed, the Court of Appeal’s orders of 30 September 2002 were to be set aside, the Court of Appeal’s orders of 10 March 2000 were to be set aside and Atkinson J’s orders were to be set aside, it would not follow that Mr Ettridge could not be convicted in the District Court proceedings.

The two sets of proceedings are essentially entirely distinct.  Mr Ettridge has not demonstrated why it is not the case that just as Atkinson J’s findings are not evidence against him in the criminal proceedings, so findings to the contrary would not be evidence in his favour in the criminal proceedings.  It has not been demonstrated why the criminal proceedings are not entirely freestanding and why they are not proceedings in which Mr Ettridge will succeed or fail entirely in the light of the evidence called in those proceedings and the arguments advanced in those proceedings and entirely independently of the proceedings determined by Justice Atkinson.

A further matter is that it is highly unusual for this Court to interrupt or delay criminal proceedings, pending the hearing of a special leave application.  There is no reason why that general practice should be departed from in this case.  For those reasons, the application for a stay is dismissed.

Does any respondent make any application for costs?

MS JACKSON:   Yes, your Honour, I would be seeking costs on behalf of my client, the Electoral Commissioner.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR CAMPBELL:   I do not seek any order for costs, thank you.

MR SHARPLES:   I seek an application for costs, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   What costs have you incurred, Mr Sharples?  You are a litigant in person.

MR SHARPLES:   Attendance, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   I think the sort of costs we are concerned with are lawyers’ costs.

MR SHARPLES:   Are there no other costs that can be considered?

HIS HONOUR:   Well, as McHugh J sometimes says, we ask the questions, not people from the Bar table.

MR SHARPLES:   I remember him saying that to me once before, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Ettridge, is there any reason why you should not pay the costs of the Electoral Commissioner?  I do not for the moment see that you should have to pay Mr Sharples’ costs and the DPP is not applying for costs.

MR ETTRIDGE:   I do not think it is fair or appropriate for me to have to pay the government’s costs when this whole matter is vexatious from the very outset.  It is a completely dysfunctional case that would take hours to describe all the areas in which it fails to be relevant or accurate.  To award costs against me is just another one of the injustices that I have had to face since I was charged with this unreasonable charge.  Your Honour, I have also had to face costs of flying up here and attending today, which are considerable.

HIS HONOUR:   Did you attempt to have the matter heard in Sydney?

MR ETTRIDGE:   No, I did not, your Honour.  I was told by the Registry in Canberra that it was going to be heard here.  It might be better if it was heard here.  The costs would have been greater if the Crown had had to come to Sydney.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Is there any other matter you want to put about costs?

MR ETTRIDGE:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   The Director of Public Prosecutions of Queensland makes no application for costs.  Mr Sharples makes an application for costs, which I reject on the grounds that it has not been shown that any taxable costs have been incurred.  As to the Electoral Commissioner, his representative applies for costs.  Mr Ettridge opposes a costs order in favour of the Electoral Commissioner.  He submitted that it was wrong that he should have to pay costs incurred by a government authority in proceedings which are themselves oppressive and ill‑founded, and that if he had to do so it would be another of the injustices he has had to face since the charge brought against him was brought.

In my opinion, the application for costs ought to be granted.  Accordingly, the orders will be:

1.  That the summons is dismissed; and

2.  That Mr Ettridge is to pay the costs of the second respondent.

As indicated above, no other costs order will be made.  The Court will now adjourn.

AT 11.46 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED