Schorel, Ex parte- Re The Hon Nicholson CJ of Family Court of Aust

[1994] HCATrans 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne      No M91 of 1994
  No M93 of 1994

In the matter of -

THE HONOURABLE NICHOLSON CJ OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA FOR AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS ACTING ON HIS BEHALF;

ex parte GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL

DAWSON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 9 DECEMBER 1994, AT 10.26 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Is there no appearance in this matter?  Mr Schorel?
Now, Mr Schorel - you are Mr Schorel, are you?

MR G.H. SCHOREL:   Yes, your Honour, I am and I seek at this point that Mr John Abbott is allowed to be my McKenzie friend because I have got a hearing problem and - 25 per cent hearing loss and I have put it in an affidavit before this honourable court.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  It is not the usual practice to allow appearance in that manner, Mr Schorel. 

MR SCHOREL:   Beg pardon, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR:   You can hear me.  It is not the usual practice to allow applications to be made in that manner in this court.

MR SCHOREL:   By this manner?

HIS HONOUR:   In this manner.

MR SCHOREL:   What you are saying - I am correct with it, your Honour.  I am not aware of ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   It is not the practice, and I do not see if the application is to be presented by someone in person why it should not be presented by you.

MR SCHOREL:   By me, made in person.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR SCHOREL:   Well, your Honour, I am on a ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Or by a legal practitioner on your behalf.  I take it that you are not a legal practitioner, sir?

MR J.M. ABBOTT:   No, I am not, sir.

MR SCHOREL:   You see, your Honour, I am on a pension and I have in the past asked Legal Aid every time to give me assistance.

HIS HONOUR:   Well, that cannot concern me in relation to your present application.

MR SCHOREL:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   So you will proceed.  I refuse the application for you to appear by someone else, and you will proceed yourself.  Very well.

MR SCHOREL:   You are refusing my application, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I am.

MR SCHOREL:   Which application, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR:   The application to appear by a McKenzie friend.

MR SCHOREL:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  So you withdraw from the bar table.  Now, if you would proceed, Mr Schorel.

MR SCHOREL:   Yes, your Honour.  Your Honour, I appear here with an urgency, your Honour, and I appreciate this court to allow me to address this court.  I have had family law matters in the Family Court of Australia for about six years regarding a child Gabrielle, and she is a ward of the Supreme Court.  I have regularly pointed out to the Family Court that my daughter was made a ward of the Supreme Court and - but regularly the Family Court made clear it is not going to be bogged down by legal technicalities so it makes orders.

I filed several objections to legal jurisdiction; form 14 which is applicable under the Family Law Act. I have filed them in as exhibits in my material, your Honour, and each and every one has been ignored. The latest one was on Monday where I was before his Honour Hase J and his Honour said he was not going to be - was not concerned about legal procedures and would proceed with it.

Now, his Honour then made orders regarding the child Gabrielle and I am opposing that.  The fear is that I have been threatened before by the Family Court that it would issue a warrant against the child and that is my concern.  Because I come to a court of law and I am aware that I have to comply to legal procedures.

HIS HONOUR:   Now, can I just stop you there, Mr Schorel.

MR SCHOREL:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Which are the orders of the Family Court of which you complain?

MR SCHOREL:   The Family Court on the moment, your Honour - I filed an affidavit with an exhibit GHS31;  I filed this on M93 of 1994.

HIS HONOUR:   This is the affidavit which is sworn 30 November 1994;  is that the one?

MR SCHOREL:   No, your Honour, that is from M91 of 1994.  The affidavit was sworn on 7 December, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Just pardon me a moment.

MR SCHOREL:   It is a very skinny thing.

HIS HONOUR:   I am sorry, it is under the other one.  Yes.  Yes, I have it.

MR SCHOREL:   Yes, your Honour.  Now, this is the order and what his - so the mother had filed an application for me to be dealt with for contempt which was also done last year.  I was then held guilty but the full court then, while it has reserved a judgment, held then that I was never charged, I was never at my rights, I was never allowed to place my case before the court, and a transcript of that case is, in fact, before this honourable court as part of exhibits. 

And the full court made known that my appeal be upheld, but it has reserved its judgment since June and it still has not been handed down.  Even as late as yesterday again I asked Registrar Haag from the Family Court, because of the proceedings today before this court, if I could be informed when that reserved judgment will be handed down but she refuses any response for the last thing.

The last letter which she gave me in regard of that was in October.  This, your Honour, is a part of my exhibits filed - which is before this court and I could, your Honour, if you wish direct you later on to the page number of that particular letter from the registrar which was October.

But the point is I have a reserve judgment from the full court that, because I contested also that the orders which I was held to be in contempt with was, in fact, never pronounced by the court;  it was simply made up by a registrar and I have the transcript.  Now, I pointed it out also on Monday to his Honour Hase J.  I said to your Honour, the transcript which I have which is before this court clearly shows that access orders made had been completed with.  I said, "Now, the orders issued since were by mistake issued."  I said, "And every time I come before this court, the court says we're not going to deal with this."  I said, but - so I was wrongfully convicted.  The full court recognised that and they now still have not handed down a decision.

What I then said to his Honour Hase J was, your Honour, where I have presented my case before the full court then ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Well, now, stop for a moment, Mr Schorel.

MR SCHOREL:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   What you are trying to do is to appeal, in effect, from an order of the Family Court;  is that right?

MR SCHOREL:   No, your Honour.  I am waiting for a decision from the full court.  Now ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR SCHOREL:   And so what I ask also Hase J on Monday is, your Honour, I said, "I have placed my case before the full court, the full court is in reserve judgment so technically I am still in conduct of my appeal case because it could still go to the High Court on legal technicalities like the wardship issue and everything else."  I said, "Therefore, I should not be again before the full - before a single judge on a lower court to deal with the same issues which the full court is to adjudicate on."

HIS HONOUR:   Well, now, Hase J rejected that submission, did he?

MR SCHOREL:   Well, Hase J said that he was not going to be bogged down by legal technicalities.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR SCHOREL:   So his Honour said, "I am not going to deal with procedural matters."  He said, "I am going to proceed."

HIS HONOUR:   And did he proceed?

MR SCHOREL:   And he did proceed.  And every time I objected, his Honour said, "Sit down, Mr Schorel."

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, and has he made an order now?

MR SCHOREL:   Beg your pardon?

HIS HONOUR:   And has he made an order?

MR SCHOREL:   The orders made - there is this GHS31 filed on ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  So that is what you object to, the order which was made, do you not?

MR SCHOREL:   And that is what I seek, that this be squashed by this court.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Well, now, this is - you attempt to do that by what is called prerogative relief, applying for prerogative relief;  that is writs of certiori, mandamus or prohibition ‑ ‑ ‑

MR SCHOREL:   That is what I have asked for.

HIS HONOUR:   But that is not an appropriate procedure.

MR SCHOREL:   Why?  In what sense?  I seek an order of prohibition ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   What you are really seeking to do is to appeal from the order that was made by Hase J.

MR SCHOREL:   Well, your Honour, if I may explain.  An appeal, right, which I have done in the past is this way:  I was before Kay J on 27 June after the full court hearing and I then said to his Honour Kay J, who then also sought to enforce the incorrect issued orders, and I said to his Honour Kay J, I said, "Your Honour, the full court has heard the matter;  it has reserved a judgment."  I said, "Therefore, I ask this court not to deal with anything until the full court has handed a decision."  His Honour Kay J said, "Look, Mr Schorel, until the full court hand down a decision and change the orders, I am well entitled to enforce that order."

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR SCHOREL:   And I said, "Well," I said, "the moment that the case is heard by the full court, then any delay the full court may need to hand down a judgment should not deny me of my benefits of my appeal."  So technically the orders are stayed for the duration of the full court hearing because the full court hearing continues from the moment it starts till it is handed down because the full court was to reconvene to argue matters further and to place it before the High Court which would be silly then if a lower court judge could then hold me in contempt where the full court might then answer, yes, those orders are all invalid.  And then in the process I am already convicted by another judge and ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   But the matters which were before Hase J or Kay J ‑ ‑ ‑

MR SCHOREL:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ did not involve contempt, did they?

MR SCHOREL:   Well, the matter was seeking an order for a warrant for the arrest of the child.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, but what ‑ ‑ ‑

MR SCHOREL:   And ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   What does that have to do with the contempt proceedings?

MR SCHOREL:   So it was that I was in contempt.  And before Hase J on Monday it was again that there was this application which was from the mother about that I was in breach of the access orders.  And I am saying there were no access orders, and here is Hase J saying, "Well, we are not going to deal with the procedural matters."  I said, "But, your Honour, if there are no access orders I cannot be in breach of it."  And this is the issue.

Now, I intend to appeal but the point is I found before the court that the court has no legal jurisdiction because the child is a ward of the state.  Now, it is my understanding that once I raise section 78B, Judiciary Act, before it the court then no longer should proceed with the matter until it has been established by proper procedures whether or not that it is relevant.  I have questioned the court's legal jurisdiction.

It is my understand that once I question the court's legal jurisdiction, and I have done so by - I have filed form - I also filed a case stated application before the full - before the court, which was before the court, a case stated application questioning the legal technicalities, and the form 14 objection to the legal jurisdiction, then the court can no longer proceed until it first has dealt with those applications.

Now, I have done everything by the book but then if the court says, look, we are not going to deal with it, and then it is seeking to invoke jurisdiction, which it has not, purely by ignoring it, I understand and I have got a wealth of case law here, your Honour, regarding High Court rules, etcetera, that clearly the court incorrectly - my daughter is a ward of the state and that is why I say - sorry, not a ward of the state, ward of the Supreme Court and that is why I ask this court to grant me an order against the Family Court not to seek to enforce the orders on Monday made because it has dealt with it, and so that I can in the meantime file another appeal.  There are already two outstanding against Hase J;  I want to file another one against Hase J for what happened on Monday because his Honour clearly disregarded legal procedures.

But because I know that the Family Court will proceed with the matter no matter what, unless a full court actually has handed down - and there is no full court hearing until March next year - I am going to be harassed like anything with court orders again.  So there is no alternative but to turn to this court and say, look ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   But did I understand your suggestion, until the full court delivers judgment in the matter which relates to the contempt ‑ ‑ ‑

MR SCHOREL:   That is right.

HIS HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ you say that the Family Court should not proceed with any other matter in relation to you?

MR SCHOREL:   Correct.

HIS HONOUR:   That is really what you are saying, is not it?

MR SCHOREL:   That is right.  Not with - so what I am saying is, first of all, on the basis of the full court reserved judgment the Family Court should not proceed in relation to those issues before the full court has been adjudicated, your Honour.  As I ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, well, I appreciate that.

MR SCHOREL:   I have done my case, I have presented my case and I should not be denied the benefit of that case.  It is not my fault if the full court needs six months or one year to hand down a decision, so I am saying in regard of that.  Now, in regard of all the matters, that reserve judgment does not apply, of course, therefore it cannot be restrained in that regard.  I understand that, too, because you cannot just blank up. 

But then I am saying what happen now on Monday is that I asked Hase J to stay proceedings which was to do with contempt again, the same issues as the full court is dealing with, and I asked his Honour to stay till the reserve judgment also till this court had dealt with my application which was filed - which was presented to this court on Monday.  But his Honour is - made time and again notice, I was not even allowed to present my case to the court.  His Honour made it clear, he did not want to hear nothing.

So, therefore, I now say, look, I have gone through all the motions.  This court is not going to listen.  It is going to enforce this order no matter whether I appeal or not.  The court has made clear in the past, even that I have filed an appeal, it will not stop it to pursue its orders.  Now, therefore, I seek this High Court now to say, okay, look, we are going to stop this court now because we cannot have tolerated a man who is following the letter of the law, who is doing everything right, now is being harassed to come here.

Because I am on a hundred and sixty five dollars a week pension, your Honour, and that is on affidavit.  Now, it is costing me about $400 more every time I have to come to the court.  I have a $300,000 Bankcard debt as a result.  The bank is threatening to take my house off and it is all because of the Family Court having to come.  I have another four children, that is on affidavit, too, next week in my care for another six weeks.  I cannot come to the court every time to answer applications when I have five little children come all the way to Melbourne,  because I live 350 kilometres, stay in hotels, and then come.  And then what they do is I come sometimes, and then the next time they say, oh, look, we changed our minds, there is no hearing today, come back next week.

Now, that is on - your Honour, this is what this evidence is all about.  It has been happening time and time again.  They send me like a yo-yo:  coming to the court, I come;  they said, oh, adjourn it.  There are ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Well, now, I must stop you there, Mr Schorel. 

MR SCHOREL:   Sorry.  Okay, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Those are not matters which are relevant to anything that is before this court.

MR SCHOREL:   Well, I think it is in that sense relevant, your Honour, while I seek to urge ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   I can appreciate your concern but it is just something which does not affect any application which you might make.

MR SCHOREL:   Yes,. but what I am trying to express to your Honour is that financially there is no way I can comply to that set of orders made on Monday.  That is what I mean by that.  They have done it to me.  I have got no money, and his Honour Hase J, having made orders now on Monday, if his Honour - if they are going to be enforced, I cannot come.  Now, who is to say I challenged the legal jurisdiction of the court to make those orders because I am saying Legal Aid Commission is now asked to appoint a solicitor for my daughter.  I am saying - but we got wardship of the Supreme Court.

Now, that wardship, and I researched the Supreme Court books about it, is designed, the wardship, so the Supreme Court protects my daughter's rights and wellbeing.  Now, where does then the Family Court get the right to say to Legal Aid Commission who knows nothing about my daughter:  Oh, you can appoint a solicitor?  I believe it should be left up to the Supreme Court.  That is what the whole wardship is about.  I wanted that wardship from the Supreme Court to protect my daughter.

.D.

[10:45am]

That was the whole idea why I wanted that in 1987.  I have no complaints about the Supreme Court and I have asked every time the Family Court please, leave the matter alone.  Leave it to the Supreme Court.  The case was never transferred from the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court never authorised the case to go to the Family Court and that is why I am saying.
Look, we got our rules.  All I am asking is to comply to the letter of the law and to leave it up to the Supreme Court.

If there is a problem with my daughter.  If they think it is a problem, why not bring it back to the Supreme Court and leave it up to the Supreme Court to sort it out, and this is why the Family Court says every time to me:  look, we are not going to deal with legal procedures.  And this is the problem, because I can make submissions as much as you like, and as your Honour said, I can appeal.  And I have already indicated I will file an order of appeal against  . . . . .inaudible. . . . . orders, but in the meantime, that can take three months to be heard, and as I said, I have already waited six months for another reasons for judgment.  It can take another six months, but in the meantime the court makes further orders.  So further appeals, further appeals.

Your Honour, it becomes a hell hole for me and my daughter.  My daughter, right, has to be taken off school every time to come to Melbourne;  at least three days ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   I - I - stop before ‑ ‑ ‑

MR SCHOREL:   ‑ ‑ ‑ so I am asking your Honour to consider that.

HIS HONOUR:   However much concern I might feel for your predicament, Mr Schorel, I have to restrict myself to the law, so you will have to do so also.

MR SCHOREL:   Beg your pardon?

HIS HONOUR:   So you will have to do so also, restrict yourself to the legal submissions which you wish to make.

MR SCHOREL:   So the legal issue is this, first of all as to the proceedings, first of all I thought on Friday, the case of ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   May I say this before you do so, it is necessary for me to limit the time which I can allow you, and I will allow you another 15 minutes.

MR SCHOREL:   Fifteen minutes, yes, okay.  I appreciate it, your Honour, at least you give me a - so what it is, your Honour, the legal - in my view the legal argument is one, the child being a ward of the Supreme Court, then only with consent of the Supreme Court can the Family Court exercise any jurisdiction.  Because the Supreme Court never gave authorisation then the Family Court has no legal jurisdiction to deal with the child.  It is interfering with the jurisdiction of the state without reason.  That is first of all.  Secondly, the thing is this, that where a contempt is alleged by a person, and which is also by the Sahari case, a contempt over access or anything like that, must be done in a proper manner, a quasi-criminal matter.  A person must be charged etcetera.  The documents, your Honour, include the transcript of the hearing before Justice Joske - Fogarty J, and his Honour made it clear on page 2 of the transcript, his Honour was not going to deal with the pre-trial, his Honour did not charge me, did not allow me to present evidence etcetera.  So legally that was all incorrect and the full court acknowledged that in June.

But the problem with the Family Court is, because they are arguing that while the Full Court has not handed down the judgment, technically I am still found at guilt, which I say it cannot be because it is state, so now the risk is that another judge is going to deal with it again, and say:  oh, but you were convicted by Fogarty J, right, and so therefore this is the second time.  Now they could chuck me in gaol.  Even so, in my view it is invalid because while the Supreme - while the full court is deal;ing with the matter it is an insult to do the full court if any lower court judge is going ahead and ignoring what the full court may have determined.

So that is what said to Hase J, too on Monday, I said, your Honour, this full court spent already six months on preparing a reason of judgment.  I said surely, I said you should respect the effort given by the full court, so in that regard.  We further have that judges time after time have made clear I am a vexatious litigant.  Now I was before Hase J on Monday and his Honour just says, in two cases, said I was vexatious litigant, two previous cases.  I asked his Honour to disqualify himself on that and I invited his Honour to check the reason of judgment from Strauss J, that I was not declared a vexatious litigant at all.  All there was, it was a temporary injunction which only last six weeks, to file, but not a vexatious litigant.

His Honour did check it out and his Honour then gave liberty, that it was general liberty to apply, because his Honour became aware for the two years that they denied me to file, it was wrong, but according to me I wasn't a vexatious litigant.  Now this is the problem where legally - now I got a letter from the - and which I filed also in my exhibit, your Honour, and this is where the registrar openly denies filing material which I filed, not because there is a breach of it, but simply he will not file it. 

Where I file appeals, your Honour, again that is in the exhibits also.  When I file an appeal.  Now my appeal against Hase J orders for Monday, now that might never be listed for hearing because that has happened with several appeals already, filed some in 1991, 1992, the registrar simply said I am not going to file it, that is it.  Now legally I am right in it.  Legally there is nothing wrong with it, and then later on the Judge said but you didn't file an appeal.  I said yes, I did, because the moment I sent it in by certified mail it is filed because I do it all by certified mail, but the registrar simply refuses.

I have applications - so what - by Family Law Rules you must then file on form 44 which is review of the registrar's decision to deny the filing of an appeal, which I do, so what the registrar then does, he refuses to list that.  I then file a further form 44 on that decision;  he refuses that too, so technically whatever I do is being out maneuvered by the court, so therefore, your Honour, filing an appeal in itself in the Family Court I found does not resolve the legal problem and I can give the effort to file, and to me that constitutes filing, but the court simply has obstructed in every possible way to proceed with it.

Now I am asking this court, you know, to make an order to direct the court to deal matters according to law.  I am not asking this court to deny the Family Court any legal jurisdiction which it is entitled to.  I am saying but it my view it had no legal jurisdiction because of wardship, and secondly where this court would consider it has certain legal jurisdiction, then that it acts properly and not deny appeals to be filed, deny - or it be listed for hearing or other applications.

And not that it - it goes on like a yo-yo to list hearings and when I turn up, the court then says, look, it is not being listed.  As I indicated in this material, your Honour, there are applications outstanding since 1991.  Now there might have been 40 or 50 hearings in between and some of those applications have been declared undefended by his Honour Graham J, but the registrar simply refused to list them.  Now to me that is a legal concern because it is not something like that I am doing something wrong.  I got a court order.  From a judge.  And the registrar said but I am simply not going to list it, and that is it.  So I have got applications for leave, seeking leave from the court, and legally I am required to seek that leave, and this is what I hope that your Honour is going to attend to, is those applications which I have requested by prohibition, mandamus and certioria, and one application I in fact I left the word certiori off, but your Honour, I hope that your Honour has seen it, but that, your Honour, being aware that what I seek from this court is not to say to the Family Court, look, you are denied legal jurisdiction, but you have jurisdiction now.

HIS HONOUR:   You have made that point.

MR SCHOREL:   But, righto, okay, but rather that it is within the guidelines and that matters be dealt with accordingly.  Now, I cannot see how I can comply to the orders of Hase J on Monday, because in my view - or my understanding to Chief Justice Latham in 1936 made a statement that:

Orders made without legal jurisdiction are no orders and can be ignored -

because they are no orders, they have no legal basis, and - but rather than justify it, in my view that there are no orders, I think it is better for me to come to this court and seek this court's understanding on that, so to have them stayed until an appeal has been heard so I can file an appeal etcetera, also that this court costs - a decision made by the full court or for $2500 cost which is also a part of it, by certioria.  That is one of the issues where I had five kids in my care.  I could not come to the court.  I had done everything, made applications to have the case adjourned for another hearing, and they refused that.  They ordered $2500 costs and as I pointed out in my material, your Honour, it is that in fact the cost did not relate to the period itself, but it related to a contempt application which was never heard that day.  I am getting flooded by contempt applications.

And so I have been ordered to pay costs with nothing to do with it, and this to me, your Honour, is also again, legally improper because first of all a person should be given a fair and proper trial to attend to a hearing.  Now when I make an application that I am unable to come financially to the court and because of five children, I thought that the court should have adjourned the matter for a hearing date that I could attend, and I know that the court cannot just ignore every time its business but the frequency that they make orders, the Family Court, I think in that case I acted properly, and also, I have conducted cases over the telephone through his Honour Graham J, successfully, and therefore also it is that - I feel that having done so in the past, where it is possible that the court continues that, because I live 350 kilometres from here, and it is my understanding that by  the legal provisions, a hearing should be heard within my county.

I have placed this before the High Court in my case filed last year which is outstanding, that it should be heard in my county, not that I should have to come all the way to Melbourne, but rather where the court is locally because the facilities are there and the provisions under the Family Law Act is that it can be heard there, and that it is a part - it is 1360 of King Edward III, who said that a king's suit should be heard in both counties, which is the local court where I live.

I have done everything possible, your Honour, to place before this court the legalities and being a litigant person I might have overlooked some, but I hope that this court perhaps not make a judgment today but reserve it till next week and maybe read my affidavit material, and that this court then  will say, well, whether it can maybe - if it cannot order a permanent stay on the time being until section 78(b) matters have been dealt with, then otherwise this court will say well, at least in the interim we will make sure that Mr Schorel is protected until an appeal has been heard against orders of Hase J, and heard and determined, so we do not have the same as what happened over the last full court that we have a six months delay, still do

not know, and every judge keeps going with the matter, and this is why it is a problem.

Because there is no proper - would I say it - hierarchical procedures.  What I understand is that a lower court should not proceed with matters which are dealt with by a higher court until it is completed, but it seems that in the Family Court it has been ignored.  Your Honour, for the sake of my child, as a conclusion, for the sake of my child, your Honour, I think that is called grand order sought to its - in its wisdom and that hopefully stops the court case altogether in the Family Court.  This will obviously be the best and that the case be ordered back to the Supreme Court where it should always have been as a ward, and I think that as to the legal position with the Legal Aid Commission, whether or not can appoint a solicitor, I think that is a question that is a constitutional question. 

I do not see that they have any legal jurisdiction.  They are not the guardian;  the Supreme Court is in that sense, and myself, and I see not how it has got a position, therefore the order is faulted on that also, and as to a welfare report that Has J ordered also, we have gone through about one every year, and every time the Justice say, well that is not helpful.  They ordered Community Service to come down.  They were cross-examined and they said there was nothing about my manner of care for the child, so I think that, your Honour, we should be protected from an ongoing harassment of Welfare Reports which are also enormous cost to come here every time for the child.

So therefore I think this court, for the sake of the child, protect us for the time being of any further litigation until this Honourable court had more time to present this case maybe before the High Court - sorry, the full court of the High Court, to determine all those constitutional matters which I have raised in my material.  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Schorel.  I will consider this matter and give my decision some time next week.

MR SCHOREL:   Some time next week, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR SCHOREL:   May I thank you very much, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   I will leave the bench now.

AT 10.58 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
INDEFINITELY