Ferdinands, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file

[2023] HCATrans 101

[2023] HCATrans 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A10 of 2023

In the matter of -

an application by TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS for leave to issue or file

GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 10 AUGUST 2023, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   The order I make in this matter is:

1. The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the application for a constitutional or other writ is refused.

I publish my reasons and I direct that those reasons be incorporated into the transcript.  I publish that order.

On 14 June 2023, the applicant filed an application for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ under r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”), supported by an affidavit sworn by him on 6 June 2023. Leave is required because on 16 May 2023, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the Rules, Jagot J directed the Registrar to refuse to issue or file the document without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained.

The proposed application for a constitutional writ identifies Charlesworth J, a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, as the defendant, though one complaint raised appears to be that Jagot J should have directed the Prime Minister of Australia to be added as a defendant.  By his proposed application the applicant seeks a broad range of relief relating to several different subjects, including at least 17 orders and at least 22 declarations.  The proposed orders and declarations are directed to Charlesworth J and others, including this Court, the Prime Minister, “any legal practitioner”, and the police.  He seeks to invoke the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) as a basis for relief.

The underlying complaint, as articulated by the applicant, appears to arise from a prosecution of the applicant in 1999 before a Defence Force magistrate, within the meaning of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth). In short, he complains about the propriety of the conduct of that prosecution and subsequent appeals. He alleges “malicious prosecution and conviction by fraud”, and an associated “cover up” involving refusal to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the prosecution.

The supporting affidavit discloses several unsuccessful attempts by the applicant to obtain “discovery” of documents relevant to the prosecution and subsequent appeals.  He complains that the conduct of several judges and a judicial registrar of the Federal Court was affected by “financial fraud” and “public corruption”.  The applicant has commenced and seemingly maintains a proceeding against that judicial registrar in the Federal Court.  One order sought is to quash case management orders made in that proceeding by Charlesworth J.

The proposed application is not articulated comprehensibly.  The claims agitated and the relief sought by the proposed application, and any proper bases for relief sought, are unclear.  Some of the relief sought is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.  The proposed application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The order I will make is:

1. The ex parte application for leave to issue or file the application for a constitutional or other writ is refused.

The Court will adjourn to 9.30 am tomorrow.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED