Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands v Chief of Army

TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
v
CHIEF OF ARMY
[2014] HCASL 1
A25/2013

In 1999, the applicant was a Corporal in the Australian Army Reserve. In November 1999, after a hearing by a Defence Force Magistrate, the applicant was convicted of assaulting an inferior contrary to s 34(1) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) and was sentenced to reduction to the rank of private.
Since 2001, the applicant has made numerous unsuccessful applications to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia and this Court to challenge his conviction. He now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court (Allsop CJ, North, Bennett, Siopis and Logan JJ) dismissing (with indemnity costs) a proceeding commenced by notice of appeal from the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and filed by the applicant on 3 April 2013 and directing (in effect) that if the applicant filed any proceeding in the Federal Court relating to his conviction, he be required to show cause why it should not be dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
12 February 2014 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands v Chief of Army concerns the applicant's ongoing attempts to challenge his conviction for assaulting an inferior in 1999. Ferdinands was a Corporal in the Australian Army Reserve at the time of the offence. He was convicted following a hearing by a Defence Force Magistrate and was sentenced to a reduction in rank to private. Since 2001, Ferdinands has made numerous unsuccessful applications to various tribunals and courts, including the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia, and the High Court, in an effort to overturn his conviction. In this instance, Ferdinands seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court, which dismissed his appeal and imposed a condition that any further proceedings in the Federal Court relating to the conviction must be shown cause why they should not be dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The legal issues that the court needed to consider in this case revolve around the merits of Ferdinands' application for special leave to appeal and the criteria for granting such leave under the High Court Rules. The court had to assess whether there were any grounds for the appeal to be considered, particularly if it was likely to succeed, and whether the application was vexatious or an abuse of process. The Full Court had already ruled on these issues, finding that there was no prospect of success for the appeal and that the application was indeed vexatious.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Hayne noted that there were no reasons to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision. The court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal would not enjoy any prospect of success, and thus, the application should be dismissed. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, the Registrar was directed to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

The court's final order was that the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, effectively concluding Ferdinands' long-standing attempts to challenge his conviction through the court system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established