Re Brown
[2004] WASC 50
RE BROWN; EX PARTE RECHICHI [2004] WASC 50
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASC 50 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1219/2004 | 17 MARCH 2004 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 17/03/04 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Applications dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RAFFAELE RECHICHI |
Catchwords: | Prerogative writs Prohibition and certiorari Decisions by Magistrate revoking personal bail and granting bail on conditions Decisions made in December 2002 and March 2003 Time Alternative to make application for variation of bail Prerogative relief inappropriate |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- CIV 1220 of 2004
RAFFAELE RECHICHI
Applicant
Catchwords:
Prerogative writs - Prohibition and certiorari - Decisions by Magistrate revoking personal bail and granting bail on conditions - Decisions made in December 2002 and March 2003 - Time - Alternative to make application for variation of bail - Prerogative relief inappropriate
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Applications dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: These are two applications in two separate matters. CIV 1219 of 2004 is an application by way of notice of motion for interlocutory orders that his Worship Mr Brown SM show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be issued preventing him from giving effect to or otherwise relying upon the decision and orders made by his Worship on 6 March 2003 and why a writ of certiorari should not be issued into this Court or removing into this Court that decision and orders for quashing.
2 The grounds of the application are six and they include claims of denial of natural justice in various ways, a failure to give reasons or no valid reasons and complain further that his Worship having disqualified himself from continuing with the applicant's trial on the grounds of prejudice and bias without any reason or valid reason or cause on Thursday, 6 March 2003, "after a stinging attack on the defendant" made orders revoking the applicant's then current personal bail and issuing the applicant new personal bail in the sum of $5,000.
3 There is a further notice of motion in that matter also dated and filed 8 March 2004 by which the applicant seeks an order that his Worship show cause why an order to supply transcripts ought not to be made and why an order to adjourn the proceedings so that the applicant can be supplied with the transcripts which can then be used in the further proceedings, should not be made. The grounds of that application basically assert that the applicant is unable to afford to pay for the transcript.
4 Those applications are supported by two affidavits of the applicant sworn on Thursday, 11 March. I do not propose to canvass the content of those affidavits other than to say that they concern events dating from 1986 up to the present time, ranging over a very large number of matters, making complaints of persecution, false allegations, forgery, a range of criminal offences and other matters by a range of people including members of local councils, members of the Police Service, members of the justice system, members of the prison system, judicial officers and criminals working with police or with the assistance of police, the judiciary and others.
5 The other matter is CIV 1220 of 2004, and that is essentially one which makes two basically similar applications but in respect of a decision made by his Worship on Monday, 8 December 2002 whereby according to the application and what Mr Rechichi has said from the bar table, the previous order made on 6 March 2003 was revoked or varied so
(Page 4)
- that the applicant was granted personal bail in the sum of $10,000 with a condition that he report weekly every Wednesday to the City police station.
6 The material in support is essentially the same as the material in CIV 1219 of 2004. It can be seen, therefore, that in substance the applicant is seeking prohibition and certiorari to in effect quash two decisions made by his Worship in relation to bail being granted to the applicant.
7 Although it does not appear from the material before me, the applicant has indicated to me from the bar table this morning that he did subsequently make an attempt to have his bail varied by appearing before the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Heath SM, but that he was advised that were he to make such an application, although his Worship would entertain it, he would grant bail on even more stringent conditions.
8 I emphasise that that information is simply asserted to me today by the applicant from the bar table.
9 It seems to me that according to the principles applicable to applications for prerogative relief of this kind the obvious avenue for the applicant to seek a variation of bail is to make a further application, if not to the Court of Petty Sessions then to the Supreme Court.
10 In light of that, and having regard to the time which has elapsed since these orders were made, it seems to me not a matter in which prerogative relief is appropriate and I would accordingly refuse the applications for the orders nisi. The applications in respect of the transcript accordingly fall away.
11 The applications will be dismissed.
0
0