Staats v Hawke

[1991] HCATrans 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry No Cl00 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

STEVEN JOHN STAATS

Applicant/Plaintiff

and

ROBERT JAMES LEE HAWKE

Prime Minister of Australia

First Defendant

Director-General of the	J.M. MOTEN
Australian Security
Intelligence Organization

Second Defendant

Application for leave to issue

Staats 1 7/11/91

TOOHEY J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 1991, AT 9.14 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:	Mr Staats.
MR STAATS:	I filed these documents, Your Honour, the

application for leave of the Justice of the

High Court, pursuant to the directions you gave to

the Registrar of the High Court of Australia.

I do apologize to you, sir, for the format in

which some of the documents appear.

HIS HONOUR:  You are speaking now of the documents that were

presented to the Registrar, are you, Mr Staats?

MR STAATS: That is correct, Sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Mr Staats, I want to make sure that you

understand the nature of this morning's

proceedings. As you know I think I gave a

direction in accordance with the rules that process

be not issued without the leave of the Court, and

the matter now before me this morning is your

application for leave to issue that process.

MR STAATS: I see.

HIS HONOUR:  It is necessary for you to satisfy the Court

that it is proper that the process be issued,

having regard to the rules with which you may be

familiar?

MR STAATS:	I do not have the rules.
HIS HONOUR:	The appropriate rule under which I gave the

direction is Order 58 rule 4, in particular

subrule (3) which reads:

If the writ, process or commission appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or a frivolous or

vexatious proceeding, the Registrar shall seek

the direction of a Justice who may direct him

to issue it or to refuse to issue it without

the leave of a Justice first had and obtained

by the party seeking to issue it.

In other words, you have to meet the objection that, on its face, the process appeared to the

Registrar:

to be an abuse of the process ...... or

frivolous or vexatious.

Now, do you wish to add anything to what appears in

the material that you lodged with the Registrar?

Staats 2 7/11/91

MR STAATS:  The documents I have submitted - first of all,

it is my sincere belief that this application for

leave is very genuine, it is very necessary and

very urgent. The matters cannot really be properly

resolved until the common sets of transactions to

which the matters complained of are really declared

ultra vires. It is not just a series of

injunctions that do not derive from very

substantial and real and very important, totally

improper and unlawful purposes which constitute

conspiracy to injure.

The final matters of course, subject to what

Your Honour directs, are decisive also in terms of

the previous proceedings. I have tried to - seeing

that I am first of all in person, I apologize to

you, Your Honour, for -

HIS HONOUR: There is no need to apologize for that.

MR STAATS:  I did try to give as much documentation for

Your Honour's consideration as possible to show the

genuineness of the application. The discovery in

terms of the common sets of transactions, that

would also require subpoenas of documents.	I have
not been able to get access to any of those
documents.	A letter of 25 October 1990 goes back

to it and which relates principally to the Prime

Minister's article.

HIS HONOUR:  Could I just say to you that there seems to me

to be two real objections to the process that you

seek to issue: one is that it may be - and it is

not by any means clear to me from reading the

material, but from what you have just said it does

seem that what is involved in the process you wish

to issue is, to some extent, involved in the

process that is already before the Federal Court;
the other objection is that on the face of this

material it simply does not disclose any action or

any cause of action that would warrant the relief

They are the difficulties, as they seem to me. that you seek against the proposed defendants.

MR STATTS: Again, Your Honour, if you wish me to - you

said, first of all, cause of action?

HIS HONOUR:  I am not asking you to go into all the detail

of the affidavit and supporting documents. I am

simply pointing out to you that there are two real

problems and one of those you have already touched

on this morning by suggesting that what you are

seeking to do through the proposed proceedings is

to raise issues that have already been raised in

the proceedings in the Federal Court.

Staats 7/11/91

MR STATTS: If I may, Your Honour, I am coming to you with

this application to do that in the slightest. It

is just that you have asked me in terms of whether

this is an abuse of process. That is not the
purport for doing that. It is just that until 30

March is a fair way to go, that these matters can

remain in full operation, in full swing because the

appeals do not in any way affect a stay upon the

common sets of transactions which allegedly give

the authority for these very serious operations.

It is not my intention to do that.

I only raise the issue to the extent that

underlying what I have been professional advised is

an intelligence neutralization operation which has
been orchestrated and is highly organized and is

trying to seize upon any point of weakness at this

stage, that even though these issues emerge also in

the Federal Court proceedings, if there had been an

operation of a stay, in that case this would not

have to arise. But, unfortunately, the situation

is one of total desperation on my part.

I apologize for having to come before you. It

is one of total desperation upon my part. The

matters are very very serious. If these matters go

to trial and the issues are properly adjudicated

upon, but in the meantime in that interregnum,

unfortunately, I am left to the mercy and prey, in

a situation where the most senior people in this

country are parties to these common sets of

transactions.

HIS HONOUR:  You see, when you speak of common sets of

transactions, that is the difficulty I was raising

with you a moment ago, which suggests that what you

are seeking to raise through these proceedings are

issues which are before the Federal Court or have

been before the Federal Court and may be before the

Federal Court on appeal.

HIS HONOUR: Well now, that is not an appropriate step to

take to approach this Court, other than perhaps by

way of application for a stay of the proceedings

elsewhere pending application for special leave to

appeal to this Court, but you are not in that area

at this stage because you say you have an appeal

pending before the Full Court of Federal Court.

MR STAATS:  I have an appeal - first of all, if I may

address myself, Your Honour, that a lot happened

between the time I filed my original application to

the Federal Court of the 26 August. That was when

I sought a declaratory judgment of right in

relation to certain injunctions that were issued

and that application specifically related to the

invalidity of those injunctions.

Staats 4 7/11/91

HIS HONOUR:  Now, is that the application that

Mr Justice Neaves struck out as disclosing no

reasonable causae of action?

MR STAATS: That is correct, Your Honour, and he also wanted

costs. All the advice I have is that my appeal is

very, very substantial and overwhelming - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Well then, that is an argument for pressing on

with whatever rights are open to you within the

scope of the Federal Court proceedings.

MR STAATS: Yes, Your Honour, if I may respectfully say

again - if this was just a situation where we could

pursue legal process without one side feeling very,

very threatened by the pursuit of that process and

having the authorization to resort to anything in

between, without there being any stay upon the -

where there is consent amongst the most senior

people, of course that considerable period of time

gives them the opportunity to manipulate that

situation to maximum advantage. My understanding

of it is that the matters complained of in the first instance in the affidavit is part of the

agreement. If, in the circumstance, these matters

reduce me to the point at which I could easily be

driven, in that case it would be irrevocable in

relation to my future, also, intentions.

To be perfectly honest, Your Honour, the

urgency of the application derives from the

desperation. I know that right throughout this I

have been the victim of all sorts of persons who

have acted in the most bizarre ways without

rationale, and when complaints have been made to
other authorities the usual course is if you

believe there has been perjury, for instance, or

some sort of criminal intent, you would, say, refer

it for investigation to the Australian Federal

Police, or if matters are referred to the

Australian Federal Police I have been advised that

they have been tied by intelligence.

It leaves me to the complete mercy and prey,

and I can assure you, Your Honour, that my corning

here before you this morning is not an easy
decision, and nor has it been made easy for me to

come here. These activities continue to remain

unabated. If it means that the common sets of

transactions are common to all of the

proceedings - in other words, that the dismissal

see, all of these later developments, but they are

from the public service was just one stage of it -

now at the final point. It is at the final point

of my virtual capitulation.

Staats 7/11/91

Now, if the common sets of transactions mean

that they are common to all of the actions - I do
not have the documents fully in relation to this at
this stage - well, I would then ask for the

remittal of all these matters to the High Court.

That is not the reason for my coming before

you to do that. My reason for coming before you is

to urgently seek interlocutory injunctions to

prevent these orchestrated, organized attempts to
induce, since I will not be a party to it
medically, through some form of homosexual

intercourse that is not with my consent but is

systematically designed to make me a party to it

voluntarily in the first instance. These people

would not be doing this unless they were

appropriately paid and unless there was this

authorization.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Staats, it is not really appropriate at this

stage of the matter to go into great detail and, in

particular to, as it were, take evidence from you.

I am faced with a notice of motion and an affidavit

in support, and it is really on the basis of that and the other material presented to the Registrar

that I need to make a decision as to whether you

should have leave to issue process.

MR STAATS:  Is there anything else that Your Honour would

like me to address?

HIS HONOUR: It is up to you. If there is anything else you

wish to tell me, well, do so.

MR STAATS:  I wish to say again, Your Honour, that this is a

most serious application. I regard coming before,

particularly a Judge of the High Court of

Australia, as a most serious matter. It is not

frivolous or vexatious. Certainly in relation to

the matters of transactions, this is not designed

to do that. Unfortunately the appeals do not

affect a stay on these matters. exploit the slightest leeway in the interregnum If they can still	that will be exploited to the maximum because they
may not even go finally to those appeals.

I feel that in terms of injunctions, in terms

of causes of action, the most important

consideration in all of this would have to be that

when something like this has alleged legality,

alleged authorization from the most senior people
in our country and I am left prey, without even any

legal recourse, that I can only really place myself

at the mercy of the Court. If Your Honour does not

wish the other matters to go to the extent that I

thought may be desirable because they could have

been designed to have been heard in the interregnum

and it would resolve a whole lot of matters then

Staats 6 7/11/91

common to the appeals, if Your Honour does not wish

to do that, that is fine by me. I am very genuine

and sincere simply to issue injunctions until such

time then as those appeals can be heard in relation
to the alleged legality of the intelligence

neutralization operations.

I refer, specifically, even if it is not an

occasion to take evidence - and I could certainly

submit a whole lot of corroborative evidence in

relation to these matters - to the fact that I have

tried properly to pursue these matters with my

former boss; that I have never had any explanation

in relation to these matters; that they were issued

a story like this that has caused considerable

shock in terms of what has subsequently been

explained; that it is part of these transactions,

in terms of these serial numbers on these

photographs derived from my birth from artificial

insemination, because of the difficulties it would

create to the authorities, that I do not procreate;

and because I am totally unwilling to go along with

these matters this may be the last opportunity that

they have to pursue these matters.

So, all I can say is that I believe it is most

essential, Your Honour~ that process be issued in

relation to this, to seek those interlocutory

injunctions.

HIS HONOUR:  I understand what you are saying, Mr Staats.

Yes, thank you for that.	I propose to deal with
the application now.

On 4 November I gave a direction to the

Registrar not to issue process which Mr Staats

wished to issue, without leave of a Justice of the

Court. That direction was given in accordance with

Order 58 rule 4 of the High Court Rules. What is

before me this morning is an application by

Mr Staats for leave to issue that process.

According to the documents that are before me,

Mr Staats wishes to lodge a notice of motion

against the Prime Minister of Australia and the
Director-General of the Australian Security

Intelligence Organization. By this motion, Mr Staats seeks to restrain the prospective

defendants - and I quote from the proposed notice

of motion:

from any further intelligence neutralisation

operations against the Plaintiff in any way

whatsoever, such operations being ultra vires

directed towards causing the Plaintiff serious

loss and damage.

Staats 7 7/11/91

I shall assume that if process were issued,

the matter is one in respect of which this Court has

original jurisdiction. I shall also assume that a

notice of motion is an appropriate way of commencing

the proceedings proposed.

From the documents before me, it is apparent

that Mr Staats has been engaged in the

Federal Court of Australia in proceedings against

the Commonwealth. On 3 October this year,

Mr Justice Neaves ordered that Mr Staats'

application be dismissed as disclosing no

reasonable cause of action. On 21 October,

Mr Staats presented the District Registry of the

Federal Court at Canberra a notice of appeal from

the judgment of Mr Justice Neaves. That notice of

appeal named as respondents the Commonwealth of

Australia and also the Prime Minister, who had not

been a party to the original proceedings. On that

day Mr Justice Neaves directed that the notice of

appeal be not accepted.

Mr Staats' affidavit in support of the present

motion, an affidavit dated 5 November 1991,

although it is not apparent whether the affidavit
was in fact witnessed, speaks of appeals to the

Full Court of the Federal Court being heard on

30 March 1992.	What the scope of those appeals is
does not emerge.

Now, I am not concerned with the proceedings

in the Federal Court, except perhaps to the extent

that they throw light upon the process Mr Staats

wishes to issue in this Court. Without going into

detail, the proceedings in the Federal Court

concern Mr Staats's position in the Department of

Defence and, in particular, disciplinary charges

that were laid against him.

It is by no means clear, from a perusal of the

papers before me, just how far the proceedings in

wishes to bring against the Prime Minister and the	the Federal Court impinge on the action Mr Staats
Director of ASIO. But, to the extent that the proposed action raises issues with which the Federal Court proceedings are concerned, it would
be inappropriate for this Court to entertain the action, particularly if proceedings are on appeal
to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

But it is unnecessary to pursue that matter

because, on the material before me, there is simply

no foundation for concluding that a cause of action

may exist against either of the proposed

defendants. There are allegations in Mr Staats's

affidavit which I do not propose to detail, because

on any view of them they do not support a claim for

Staats 7/11/91

injunctive or declaratory relief or anything in the

nature of prerogative relief or, indeed, any relief

against the proposed defendants.

In my view the proceedings proposed would be

futile. I therefore refuse leave to Mr Staats to

issue the notice of motion dated 4 November 1991,

in respect of which I gave a direction to the

Registrar that day. Accordingly, the motion seeking leave is dismissed.

I trust you understand the effect of that,

Mr Staats?

MR STAATS: Yes, I do. Can I please seek leave to appeal to

the Full Court or not?

HIS HONOUR:  I am not sure that you need leave to appeal to

the Full Court.

MR STAATS: There is no application yet, at this stage,

Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  The Judiciary Act, section 34, provides that:

The High Court shall ..... have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from all judgments

whatsoever of any Justice or Justices,

exercising the original jurisdiction of the

High Court whether in Court or Chambers.

Then, there is a further provision, Mr Staats:

An appeal shall not be brought without the

leave of the High Court from an interlocutory

judgment -

and I do not think it is really my role to advise

you as to where this morning's decision falls

within section 34. If you have a right of appeal

without leave, then you have one.	To the extent
that it is necessaFY that there be leave in order

to bring an appeal from this morning's decision, I

am not prepared to grant that leave.

MR STAATS:  You are not prepared to grant leave, then, to

appeal?

HIS HONOUR:	No.
MR STAATS:	I see.
HIS HONOUR:	The Court will now adjourn.

AT 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Staats 9 7/11/91