Re Thorpe (No 2)

The case of Re Thorpe (No 2) involved the applicant who sought to file documents to commence a criminal proceeding. The application aimed to obtain directions for the assembly of a special court to hear certain matters. The Deputy Prothonotary declined to seal the documents, finding them to be substantially and procedurally irregular. In response, the applicant sought a review of this refusal under rule 28A.03(5) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). The court was tasked with determining whether the refusal was unreasonable, unjust, or improper, and whether the documents were in fact substantially and procedurally irregular. Additionally, the court had to decide if it had the power to make the directions sought in the proposed proceeding.

The court addressed the applicant's concerns by first examining the nature of the proposed proceeding and the directions sought. The court concluded that it did not have the power to make the directions requested by the applicant, as these were beyond its jurisdiction. The court held that the directions sought were not matters that the court could properly consider or decide upon. Furthermore, the court found that the Deputy Prothonotary's decision to refuse to seal the documents was not unreasonable, unjust, or improper, as the documents were indeed substantially and procedurally irregular. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for review.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). Specifically, the court relied on section 104(1) of the Constitution Act and rule 28A.04 of the Supreme Court Rules to support its findings. The court emphasised that the directions sought by the applicant were beyond its jurisdictional scope and that the Deputy Prothonotary's decision to refuse to seal the documents was well-founded. Therefore, the court upheld the Deputy Prothonotary's decision, and no direction was made in relation to the proposed proceeding.