Staats v Hawke

[1991] HCATrans 345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry No Cl00 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

STEVEN JOHN STAATS

Applicant

and

THE HONOURABLE ROBERT JAMES LEE

HAWKE AC MP, Prime Minister of

Australia

First Respondent

and

J.M. MOTEN, Director-General,

Australian Security

Intelligence Organization

Second Respondent

Application for waiver of fees

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1991, AT 2.16 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Staats(2)	1	5/12/91
HER HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Staats.	You appear for yourself?

MR S.J.STAATS: Yes, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:	Could you outline your application please?
MR STAATS:	I was given directions by the Registrar of the

High Court on 25 November to refuse my filing a

notice of appeal for Their Honours, the appeal

Judges of the Full Court of the High Court of

Australia and an application for leave to appeal

from Registry No Cl00 of 1991. I tried to file

both in case the Full Court decides it is an

interlocutory judgment rather than a final judgment

just so that I am covered.

HER HONOUR:  So you are seeking to file an application for

leave to appeal and a notice of appeal?

MR STAATS: That is correct, Your Honour. I was told that

the full filing fee was $300. I know that the

filing fee for the notice of appeal is $300, but I

thought that the application for leave to appeal

was $200, so I thought it was $500 altogether, but

that is only what I thought. I was told that

unless it is paid in advance, despite a submission to the Deputy Registrar of extreme hardship, and I previously attested to this on oath and I was

remitted a filing fee.

I am not here simply on the grounds of severe

hardship. I only receive job search allowance from

the Department of Social Security which is

approximately $280 a fortnight. I am also in debt

to approximately $400, but I am here because my

case at law in terms of the appeals are

overwhelming. The matters upon which I am seeking

to obtain remedy are absolutely vital to me and my

future, and I believe that I would be very

seriously deprived of justice if I was refused the

opportunity to file the notice of appeal and the

application for leave to appeal.

Unfortunately, my very serious impecunious

circumstances cause me some embarrassment also,

Your Honour, and it is not very pleasant to have to

speak in these sorts of terms, but if Your Honour

has had the opportunity to see, also, the previous

proceeding you would know something of the
background relating to these matters, in my case my financial and economic circumstances, particularly,

after my dismissal from the Australian Public

Service from which I resigned on 14 March.

HER HONOUR:  But I think, Mr Staats, you can assume that

there is no problem in establishing that your

Staats(2) 2 5/12/91

impecuniosity would entitle you to an order of the

kind you seek if it were otherwise appropriate, and

the problem, it seems to me, is that you must show

that the proceedings, which you sought to

institute, are in an intelligible form and raise a

cause of action which is properly litigated in this

Court. I think that is what you must turn your

mind to and you must show, I think, according to

the authorities in this regard, that your case is

one where there are some prospects of success.

MR STAATS:  Thank you, Your Honour. I do intend to address

myself to those questions now. The first authority

that I would be citing would be Dey v Victorian

Railways Commissioners, (1948-49) 78, it is page 91, Dixon J.

GAUDRON J: Yes, I know that case.

MR STAATS: If I may quote from His Honour:

once it appears that there is a real question

to be determined whether of fact or law and

that the rights of the parties depend upon it,
then it is not competent for the court to

dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious

and an abuse of process.

GAUDRON J: Yes.

MR STAATS:  I submit, unequivocally, Your Honour, that my

appeals and, indeed, the original applications

reaffirm what His Honour said. I also cite a much

earlier case, this is Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale,

(1908) 7 CLR at page 92, where His Honour

Justice O'Connor said:

Prima facie, every litigant has a right to

have matters of law as well as of fact decided

according to the ordinary rules of procedure,

which give him full time and opportunity for

the presentation of his case ..•.. and the

inherent jurisdiction of the Court to protect

its process from abuse by depriving a litigant

of these rights and summarily disposing of an

action as frivolous and vexatious •.•.. will

never be exercised unless the plaintiff's

claim is so obviously untenable that it cannot

possibly succeed.

I cite those two authorities upon which I have been

briefed as the guidelines and the criteria by

which, if I may respectfully say, Your Honour, we

may approach then the subject-matter. I must

demonstrate to you that the subject-matter of my

appeals has a very high degree of success to - - -

Staats(2) 5/12/91

HER HONOUR: It has some prospect of success; that is

sufficient.

MR STAATS:  I would say it has a very high degree of success

and if Your Honour pleases - and I seek your

indulgence a little bit in relation to this - I

will then address myself to those questions.

HER HONOUR:	Yes, please do.
MR STAATS:	The reasons that I make those comments,

Your Honour, is that the proceedings, if I may say,

are proceedings in equity.

HER HONOUR:  That may not be a distinction that is of great

importance.

MR STAATS:  Because they are in equity, I am seeking

equitable relief, hat is, injunctions and

declarations. Injunctions and declarations in my

matter involve administrative law.

HER HONOUR:	You are not seeking prohibition any more?
MR STAATS:	I am seeking interlocutory injunctions against

the first and second respondents - I do not wish to

belabour who they are unnecessarily - and I am

seeking declarations to finally resolve these

matters. The guidelines and the tests in relation

to seeking that remedy and the criteria for

determining whether or not I have a case is whether

or not the matters complained of, which are common

sets of transactions - - -

HER HONOUR:	I do not understand that.
MR STAATS:	Do you want me to refer to what the common sets

of transactions are?

HER HONOUR:	It is a matter for you, Mr Staats, but I do not understand that to have any particular legal
significance, that it is a common set of
transactions, save possibly to suggest that the
matters, if they are properly the subject of litigation, should be dealt with with the other
matter that is in the Federal Court.
MR STAATS:	No, because as I make perfectly clear, the

subject-matter of this application involves matters

complained of which are ultra vires in

administrative law, and those matters complained

of, and to which the common sets of transactions

relate, is firstly an article by the Prime Minister

entitled, "Shiny Brass Coffin Handles". There is

also a letter of 25 October, of which I first

became appraised on 13 September 1990. It was sent

by his senior private secretary and it has the

Staats(2) 4 5/12/91

official insignia - it says, "With the compliments

of the Senior Private Secretary to the Prime

Minister". In normal circumstances that would

possibly not have very much significance. In my

circumstances of extreme duress ..... , having been

dismissed from the Australian - or recommended
multiple times for dismissal from the Australian

Public Service, with a whole history of previous

interference in my employment - and, of course, it

is not appropriate at this stage for Your Honour

necessarily to come to any conclusions in relation

to those sorts of matters, but in terms of my

circumstances it had a specific significance to the

extent that the purport of this article is that if

I refer matters to more senior people, say matters of perjury that have emerged in previous affidavits

or matters that seem to have criminal intent,

et cetera, it appears that the purport of this

article is, and the conclusion that may be derived

from it is, that the proper response would be that

you would refer it to the appropriate authorities

for investigation. Whether or not that

investigation confirms, it is incumbent upon our

most senior officials to act with propriety.

Now, I have made allegations in that letter,

like I have said, pursuant to correspondence, of

"maliciously attempted to destroy my career, and
otherwise, particularly from the time of your

attempts to dispense with me when your employee in

a research capacity at the ACTU". Now, the failure

to do that, and the understanding that I have which

derives from this, and if we could come back to the
question then of those transactions, is that in so

far as my situation is concerned, that is sealed,

that is set, it has been determined, and that if I

want appropriate investigation from higher-ups, and

even a response to those sorts of matters, it will

not occur.

from my birth, which is by artificial insemination, Those matters, as I have been briefed, emerge and the disclosures to me of who my true father is

in terms of that insemination, and the political

exploitation of the immigration. And because that
exploitation of the immigration has manifest

consequences, particularly in terms of its exposure

- and, as I said, I have never really been briefed

on these matters fully and properly until June of

this year - that is part of the reason and part of

the purport for this intelligence operation that

has been instituted for some time.

I never knew what was involved in that

intelligence operation, but authority derived from
those transactions to which Mr Hawke, in both his

private and I believe in his public capacity, with

Staats(2) 5/12/91

Mr Moten, the Director-General of the Australian

Security Intelligence Organization, happened to be

parties.

In such a situation with such transactions and

which, prima facie, the conclusions that can be

drawn from previous correspondence, my own personal

circumstances, responses to matters that have been

put to them and the matters that have been

complained of, which have been systematic,

organized, orchestrated attempts to induce my

complete ruin, isolation, to stigmatize and

marginalize, the chances are that in due course,
with all opportunities after the dismissal from the

public service also being destroyed by all sorts of

tactics of waking me up at 4 o'clock in the

morning, having to go to doctors, getting

improperly injected, feeling very ill after it,

forcing me to withdraw from a Diploma of Education
course, despite my satisfaction with it, and all
the other subsequent attempts, my understanding of

the situation is that they have dispensed with me

in employment terms for good.

When it becomes an intelligence operation, they can easily approach other potential employers

and make it more difficult for me. If Your Honour

has had the opportunity to look at some of these

documents in here, you would possibly be appraised,

Your Honour, of some of the matters. In relation

to these allegations, yes, there is a lot of

corroborative evidence which consists of other witnesses, particularly photographic evidence.

The first document that came was approximately

90 or 100 pages, and for me, I am possibly seeing

you, Your Honour, as one of the most disadvantaged

persons you could possibly imagine. But these are

not just my opinions. These are matters, because

of the seriousness of the situation and because

matters were beginning to inter-relate and

interconnect, that I sought professional advice

upon.

I had two meetings with Councillor Burkeman

and other staff, a Mr Artsun of the Chancery of the

Netherlands Embassy, who provided me with very

valuable information, who expressed his such

serious concern of what was transpiring and alerted

me to some of the causes of it.	Mr Burkeman
himself told me that this was a conspiracy.	The

only thing that they could recommend at that time

was my immediate departure, knowing my sort of

circumstances.

However, because I am an Australian citizen,

they could not contribute further to that. I have

Staats(2) 6 5/12/91

also, as Your Honour may see in terms of some of

the documents, approached the parties concerned in

relation to these matters without any denial that

they have occurred and that they will not reoccur.

It would be proper, I think, in normal

circumstances if these matters are appropriately
put in a balanced and reasonable way, to simply

say, "We completely deny any such activities", but

there has been no denial and there has been no

assurances. That has been of concern.

HER HONOUR: 

One cannot take anything from that as a matter

of law. There is no evidentiary value in a failure
of somebody to deny, save in certain very limited

circumstances.

MR STAATS: Well, okay, thank you for that clarification.

All the same, we are not just dealing with, as I

said, private individuals. That may be the case in

relation to some situations, but there are also

public responsibilities that involve upon these

individuals. I would not be quite sure of what the

legal consequences are, and I would not attempt to

do so, but I would like you to know that I

properly, reasonably and fully raise these matters.

They have also been raised and in terms of the

explanation for these matters from why these

matters have emerged, and there is a letter of

13 October 1991 that His Excellency the US

Ambassador - now a whole series of matters were put

to him.

I have also had communications with someone

who knows of these matters in the US who has

recommended that these matters in so far as the

United States' instigation of some of this has been concerned, be referred to a permanent committee on

intelligence by the Congress of the United States

and the House of Representatives and also a Senate

committee on intelligence. I do not know what is

going to come of that, but their assessments in

relation to these matters of the reasons for
concern derive from my explanation to them.	I have
found their assistance very useful.

I have also had communications with

Mr Jan Materson, UN Under-Secretary-General, Centre

for Human Rights, and even though the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees here does

not have jurisdiction in relation to a situation

like mine, they do have someone in the Palais des Nations in Geneva where all legal avenues must be exhausted before they can assist, but they also

assist with legal advice. That advice, because it

is confidential, I cannot really disclose to this

Court and they have asked me not to disclose it

either, but I have appropriately approached them; I

Staats(2) 5/12/91

have appropriately sought detailed appraisals for

them and without disclosing what they have advised

to me, they have strongly recommended just for my

pursuance of this particular action. Being

somewhat expert also in these operations, usually -

without disclosing what they have said to me, but

the usual course is that in a situation like this
the person generally has sufficient funds or money

to be able to depart, and it is only usually in
some other western or third world country or some

other sort of situation or some other tragedy has

happened.

But going through the totality of my situation

and going through the totality of why I have been

deprived a proper vocational education and been

trained for a career that is virtually

non-existent, they have come to conclusions about

that exploitation being something that is derived

from the immigration and they have expressed their

serious concern.

I cannot really disclose too much more about

what he has disclosed to me, but he has strongly

recommended these matters. I respectfully submit

that a prima facie case has been made, and so if we

turn back to some of the original - there are real

questions to be determined, whether of fact and

law. There are questions to be determined of fact

in relation to what the common sets of transactions

are, when they were entered, who they were entered

with, what the purposes are - - -

HER HONOUR:  There may be questions to be determined, but in

so far as you seek ex parte interlocutory

injunctive relief, for example, so far as you seek

injunctions, you must establish a prima facie case,

and it is not sufficient to say that there are

questions to be answered.

MR STAATS:  I have already submitted respectfully,

Your Honour - first of all this is an application
to appeal, or to seek leave to appeal.	It is not
an application for the injunctions themselves.	I
have been advised that the documents in terms of the story and my letter to the Prime Minister and

the purport and the explanation and the advice that

I have received in relation to these matters and

the facts surrounding the entirety of my case

establish such a prima facie case, but to establish

the facts in relation to that, yes, that would

require the subpoena of those documents. Prima

facie I have been advised that it is unequivocal on

the facts that have been disclosed, considering the

totality of my background and more recently my own

particular circumstances that just in terms of

jurisdiction, in terms of whether there is any

Staats(2) 5/12/91

legality to those sorts of transactions, whatever

others may desire in relation to them - and it is

only recently that I have in fact become aware,

Your Honour, of what the purport of these - what

has been behind these sorts of matters, well,

subpoenas can be issued to try those questions of

fact properly.

The questions of law, of course, revolve

around the questions to deal with ultra vires.

They are the very serious questions to be

determined. From everything that has been advanced

and from everything that has been put to me, other

responsible officials would not be expressing this
sort of concern and would not be highlighting the
nature that these - if we look at, say, the

dismissal documents backing this application here

of this man that they call Baxter, that if he is

denied me natural justice in relation to

these - - - ·~

HER HONOUR:  But that is a matter that is proceeding before the Federal Court, is it not?

MR STAATS:  No, it is not. The dismissal itself - it was

impossible for me to continue in the public service

after the multiple recommendations for my

dismissal. The action in the Federal Court is an

action that deals with how the government obtained

certain injunctions so it could continue to defend

litigation which otherwise it would not have been

able to have continued because they had a desperate

gamble, hoping, by cutting me off from social

security at a certain point of time in my

circumstances, because I had been left without

representation, that I would have broken from the

Federal Court. If Your Honour would kindly appraise yourself of those documents.

HER HONOUR:  Yes, I have all the documents.

MR STAATS:  Thank you, you would get some idea in relation

to this. The action in the Federal Court is an

action that deals with the invalidity of those

injunctions and how they were obtained. I have a

high regard for, when people come before a court,

that they properly and fully and honestly disclose.

At the time when I consented to the injunction so

that, in essence, the Commonwealth could continue

to litigate, I could never imagine that a counsel

as a member of a very respected profession and the

sorts of obligations that he would have to the

court, would not have disclosed the sorts of recent times, and was only able to get those

actions which are obviously in very serious breach.

Staats(2) 9 5/12/91

documents after some sort of difficulty and ~fter

others had more or less considered it.

Whilst I would have had a very good case on

denial of natural justice grounds to have got those

documents declared as ultra vires, after what I

suffered with this man, despite the fact that I had

many friends in the public service, within the

Department of Defence, had a positive approach to

my work, tried everything to pursue my career

properly, these sorts of stooges and having been
held at gun point at Duntroon with US Embassy

personnel present in their pay office, I did not

feel, as a matter of utility, that I could have

gone before the court and have asked them to

continue this sort of scenario any further, and

His Honour did not seem, at that stage,

particularly willing to countenance that and, also,

he had made it clear to me beforehand that as far

as damagfts were concerned, that was not really

something that I could claim out of that action,

perhaps something like the tort of misfeasance.

But I just refer this to you, Your Honour.

When I resigned I did not know what was behind

these sorts of matters.	I did not know that there
were these transactions.	I had no idea that the

Government solicitor in letters that he also wrote

at that time which were part of the terms of

settlement, even though they were marked "without

prejudice", I thought that it was just a matter of

resigning from the Department of Defence and then,

say, at a future point in time doing a public

service test again to re-enter the public service

which I did, not knowing that that situation has

more or less permanently precluded my re-entering

the public service. I was not really aware that

there was, at that time, an underlying conspiracy actuated by totally improper purposes of which we are now in the final sequential stages. If I had

been appraised of those facts of which I am aware

now, that resignation would never have been

submitted in that form, but that is because I knew

someone else at Macquarie who also resigned and she

said, "Well, it is just a matter of corning back

into the public service, doing the test again and

corning back in again and going into another

department", and at that time I did not bother to think very much more about it. I thought that it

may be something related to certain matters in the

Defence Department. But it is only of recent times

that I have become appraised, or recent times in

the last year or so, of some of the matters and,

more particularly, of briefings I have received

from June onwards because of very serious concern.

Staats(2) 10 5/12/91

But you are getting some sort of a picture.

The complete attempts to dispense with me in

employment terms mean that my life, my ability to

properly socialize with other appropriate peer

groups, even though I was recommended for and

attempted a diploma of education training course at

the University of Canberra, I again suffered from

systematic, organized and orchestrated and

interlinked operations to drive me into the hands
of doctors, to be injected by gamma-globulin, to

suffer other abuse, to become very, very ill and

then to have to withdraw from the course and their

objective was achieved. I believe that in so far

as my employment is concerned, those transactions

reveal that they do not wish to go any further with

me at all.

All these matters, of course, would be very, very seriously ultra vires. Challenging anyone's

professional medical opinion, of course, is always

a very difficult matter, but I just mention some of

those things in terms of some of the background.

Because my previous background also had made

me vulnerable, by not having proper career
education, despite the fact I attempted to do

courses in law and in economics when I was at the

University of Melbourne, I did find it very strange

at that time that there were attempts to just

dispense with me in those professional faculties

and just to continue on - I did try to do combined

degrees in law and in economics - but it was only

within the political science stream that I was

actively encouraged.

As soon as I finished my degree - I got a

first class honours degree; awarded all these

prizes - I cannot say that I was necessarily the best student in the class to necessarily deserve

that. Immediately I was offered a Fulbright

Fellowship and a James B. Duke Commonwealth

Fellowship and upon recollection - and it is

sometimes difficult after arriving there - some

grad students had intimated to me that the CIA was

involved in my case. I never pursued those

matters, but they got me on to that sort of

tangent. If I had been able to complete the PhD,

well, yes, I would have been then eligible for more

academic orientated positions, but as soon as I

finished the masters, there was then this pressure

placed upon me for me to return to Australia and

was immediately offered this consultantcy to the

Social Welfare Commission and that research officer position at the ACTU, where I worked with the first respondent.

Staats(2) 11 5/12/91

But all of that just sounds a little bit too

far fetched and too much to believe that there is

not something else that those employment decisions,

as the subsequent ones, were not influenced by.	I
have inquired from the CES what I can do,

counselling and all the rest of it, but when you
are dealing with a systematic and organized
attempt, as I am, to dispense with me and that they

are at the final stages of it now, I can assure you

that, unless there is legal remedy or unless

something can be done, the objectives would, in due

course, be achieved.

Now that I am a wake-up to them, of course,

and now that I have been briefed, well, it has

caused a lot of concern to them, but as a natural

matter of fact, I would probably die in suicide or

otherwise suffer from some sort of

institutionalization. They would find doctors to

do that with. I did also seek, successfully,

injunctions in 1987, to prevent serious medical

abuse by all sorts of referrals. Just on the basis

of one appointment - and once you are in the hands

of a psychiatrist, well, in that case, as I have
said, professional medical opinion will never very

easily be challenged, but I do not think that they

can consider those any more as options and indeed,

the doctors that were involved in the matters

complained of at Capital Medical Centre have, in

fact, packed up.

So, surrounding all of this, there are real

questions to be determined of fact and law; the facts and the law relating to the common set of

transactions which, I believe, are more amenable to
the declaratory judgment; and secondly, the facts

and law relating to the actual operations.

The facts surrounding the actual operations, those sorts of facts, if injunctions are sought, I

have been advised that in terms of these

operations, in terms of thugs, in terms of all

sorts of harassment not to disclose things to the

federal police, whilst they have been observed and

photographed - and certainly will be presented to

this Court if it goes to trial - it is not my

intention to seek injunctions.

Let us say something happened where I was

accosted or approached by those sorts of people or

the persuasive, coercive aspects of it to induce

all sorts of things in terms of homosexuality and

drug addiction, no. The injunctions would simply

be directed towards the documentation and the

decisions that the first and second respondents

would be making in relation to the continued

authorization.

Staats(2) 12 5/12/91

So if it came to a point of challenging, say,

whether there has been a breach of those

injunctions, I would not be getting involved with

the underlings, no. It would simply be an

examination of the decisions and the documents at
the time at which the injunctions, if they were

issued, if there were breaches in those ways.

So if someone said to you - or if you said

that it would be very difficult in terms of

injunctions or impossible to award injunctions if

they cannot be enforced, I am not seeking

enforcement in relation to that. That

automatically would be the result if the

injunctions were awarded against the first and

second respondents, but I would be looking at their
decisions and the documents in relation to their

decisions to see whether or not they had been

complied with.

The questions of law surrounding those operations, yes. If they are having the impacts

and are reaching the objectives that have been

sought in relation to dispense with me - there have

also, I should say, been assailants and things like

that - those facts would help to corroborate the

questions of law to demonstrate to you what the

factual bases are further in terms of those

operations of how it is conspiracy to injure, what
are the seriously improper and unlawful purposes.

Of course, establishing the identities of the parties that are involved, that is often quite a

difficult sort of matter. I do not know their

names or addresses or anything else like that, but

it can only be by observation. I am not saying in
relation to all of them, but their operations -

when I say "unlawful", they may not be criminal,

but certainly the aggregation of them are to drive

someone like me to this situation.

Like I said, this situation is also coming to

some end for them, because they now know that I am a wake-up. My complete demise, if it had to go to

that point, would result in a book that I have been

interviewed for, despite the fact that the

publisher that was connected with it is no longer

there. So I do not know what to expect from that.

They are the real questions of fact and law.

Certainly, if I do not seek this appeal, that would

possibly be - if that was a final judgment, for

instance - the last time that I could seek to

litigate those matters.	I am very determined to
achieve a proper legal remedy.	I would be very

determined to achieve proper legal remedy by

seeking to set those transactions aside permanently

Staats(2) 13 5/12/91

as ultra vires and it is absolutely essential, even

though the appeals do not mean that I get any stays

in the action on these matters, to properly resolve

these matters. If I did not appeal it could

possibly be interpreted, if that was a final

judgment, that I was no longer seeking legal

recourse in relation to it and that I might

therefore be consenting to these matters further

on. Well, that is certainly not the case at all.

I have also alluded to the fact that the ex

parte proceedings to this point, even though

His Honour dismissed the application, I would say one conclusion to be drawn from that application,

the reasons I was briefed and strongly recommended

to come, was that in no way could it be interpreted

that those matters complained of and to which they

were getting some success had in any way my consent

and secondly, for those parties to have been raised

in that sort of way. But I can honestly say to

you, in terms of those specific matters, of my

desexing, which is the term of those transactions

and which is something specifically derived to make

me more amenable to this situation, well, I can

honestly say that it has had, to this stage, that

positive effect.

But I believe, Your Honour, that it is vital,

as I have been briefed, that I seek to obtain as

soon and as urgently as possible, all legal remedy

in relation to these matters. Of course, legal

remedy is often quite difficult and I certainly do

not wish to waste the Court's time, your time, or
anyone else's time, but because of the extreme
seriousness of these matters and because of the
extreme seriousness, also, to the respondents of
these matters, everything was done during the
intervening period of those appeals in the Federal

Court which, when all of this became very

heightened, to make it much more difficult to even

get to the point of lodging those appeals.

I am not a person - having lived with fear

most of my life, and particularly during my

childhood, I am not a person that easily becomes

frightened of anything, despite having been advised

that there are karate groups and all sorts of other

things and all sorts of manifestations. Very
frequently where I live, clubs that I associate,

others that I see, and friends of mine, to

marginalize, who have suffered broken arms, et

cetera. As far as I am concerned, if people try

and make some intimidation public, I usually say,

and I usually think, that if they are going to make

it public they are not going to do that much about

it, but if they are going to do something about it,

Staats(2) 14 5/12/91

I do not think they would be doing anything about

it officially.

HER HONOUR: 

Mr Staats, you seem to have strayed a long way

from the point whether or not you have got an
arguable case.

MR STAATS:  Okay. Well, I apologize to Your Honour. My

view, Your Honour, on the advice that I have, is

that that is definitely so; that there are real

questions to be determined, of fact and law, that I

have established prima facie those matters, that it

is most competent for these matters to go on to
appeal and that my rights very seriously depend

upon that, and that the remedies themselves,

particularly the declarations to finally set these

matters aside, are most appropriate in terms of the

remedies. As Your Honour could see by the previous

litigation, I am a reluctant litigant. I do not

come here easily or without understanding - it is

not competent of a court to deprive me of this, so the appeals are vital to my future and depend upon

it.

There were the other matters also, of the

appeals before the Federal Court. Those appeals
before the Federal Court certainly are not subject
specific to these appeals, even if they are

different aspects. One, as I said, previous,

relates to the invalidity of injunctions that were

awarded and what the consequences of the invalidity

of those injunctions were, in terms of alleged

breaches of consent orders and improper disclosure

to the Court which would not have allowed, in my

view, the awarding of those injunctions and, in

fact, even the respondent to have orally moved the

Court to have even sought those injunctions, so

they are not subject related to.this.

The further applications for leave to appeal -

well, they relate to the time period that predates

my dismissal from the Australian Public Service, or

resignation on 14 March 1990, but they are

questions of joint and several liability that arise

from it. So, in terms of those appeals, the issues

are totally different and the resolution of those

appeals do not predetermine or necessarily affect

these matters. His Honour did kindly allow me to

come to make that Chamber application in the first

instance and so had thought - so those matters that

were transpiring in the Federal Court and that are

before the Full Court of the Federal Court - and it

has taken me quite a lot of work to prepare all of

the appeal books, eight of which have been filed in

terms of the leave to appeal, and served, and the

other seven are for the notice of appeal, well,

they will be before the Full Court of the Federal

Staats(2) 15 5/12/91

Court, but that would probably, anyway, be heard

before these matters would go on to appeal, I would

imagine, that would possibly - - -

HER HONOUR:  You cannot litigate the same matters in two

courts, Mr Staats. That is one of your problems.

MR STAATS: Well, it is not litigating the same matters in

both courts. The issues in the notice of appeal

are totally different; they are not even related;
they are issues that derive from proceedings and
the propriety of injunctions in those proceedings
and the invalidity of injunctions of those
proceedings, they do not relate. In relation to
leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal

Court, we can only make some decision to that if the Full Court even allows that appeal to proceed.

But the subject-matter of that litigation, which is

joint and civil liability of the first respondent

in his private capacity for employment decisions
predating the public service, is totally different
in essence to this, which is an intelligence

neutralization operation which has been in full

swing at this point of time.

Because they are quite different and quite different proceedings, the resolution of the one

does not necessarily affect the resolution in any

way of the other. Just because I get declarations

to declare the sets of transactions with respect to
these matters as ultra vires, that may or may not

affect his liability in a private capacity in terms

of employment matters to which he consented in

relation to those sorts of transactions. So, with
respect, Your Honour, I do not see that in any way

affecting the propriety for seeking the appeals.

I apologize to Your Honour for taking so much

of your time, but I want you to know that it is very genuine and I regard coming before a judge,

particularly a Judge of the High Court of

Australia, as a very serious matter, and to be

properly advised and that you are entitled to be
very properly briefed, but I would feel

particularly vulnerable, because these matters are

so vital to me and because of what I know of these

matters, not going on to appeals and not to get the

remedy that I believe I am entitled to, yes, that

would be very, very serious indeed. So I am very,

very strongly committed, Your Honour, to the

pursuit of those appeals.

HER HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Staats.

This is an application under Order 72 rule 12

that a fee not be taken or that it be remitted in

whole or in part in respect of an application for

Staats(2) 16 5/12/91

leave to appeal or, alternatively, a notice of a

notice of appeal from a decision of Justice Toohey

given on 7 November 1991. On that occasion

Justice Toohey refused leave to issue process which

had been lodged with the Registry between the

present applicant, Steven John Staats, and two

named defendants, namely, Robert James Lee Hawke,

Prime Minister of Australia, and J.M. Moten,

Director-General of the Australian Security

Intelligence Organization.

The process which had been filed was entitled

"Notice of Motion" and described itself to be an:

Application for writ of prohibition or

interlocutory injunctions restraining the

first and second defendants until application

for declaratory judgment of right setting

aside common sets of transactions as ultra

vires disclosing serious conspiracy to injure

and improper and unlawful purposes against

plaintiff can be determined.

The document sought relief in these terms:

1. The first and second defendants forthwith

be restrained from any further intelligence

neutralization operations against the

plaintiff in any way whatsoever, such

operations being ultra vires and directed

towards causing the plaintiff serious loss and

damage;

2.      The plaintiff claims for all loss and

damage caused.

It may be accepted that the plaintiff is

impecunious to the point that it would be a proper

case for the remission of fees if it could be

thought that the matter before the Court raised a

triable issue which had reasonable prospects of

success. It was on the basis that it did not raise

such an issue that Justice Toohey declined to allow

that process to be issued and I can see no basis

for thinking that there is any prospect of success

of an appeal from that decision because the

document, when considered, fails to disclose any

cause of action which has reasonable prospects of

success.

The application is therefore refused.

MR STAATS: Well, I will also be appealing, Your Honour,

from your decision.

Staats(2) 17 5/12/91

HER HONOUR: Yes, I understand that. Yes, thank you,

Mr Staats.

AT 3.07 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Staats(2) 18 5/12/91