Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands v District Court of South Australia

[2012] HCASL 23

TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
v
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA & ORS
[2012] HCASL 23
A30/2011

1. On 1 April 1997 the applicant, who was then a police officer, allegedly failed to report for duty.  On 6 January 1998 he was charged with being absent from his duties without permission.  He pleaded not guilty.  On 27 March 1998 he changed the plea to guilty.  A penalty was imposed on or about 10 July 1998. 

2. Nearly three years later, on 8 March 2001, the applicant appealed, well out of time, against conviction and penalty to the District Court (Smith DCJ).  Smith DCJ extended time, rescinded the decisions complained of, and remitted the matter to the Police Disciplinary Tribunal.  Smith DCJ then set aside his own orders pursuant to r 84.12 of the District Court Rules (SA) on the ground that the Commissioner of Police had operated on an understanding different from that of the judge, namely that the proceedings were to be limited to the application to extend time to appeal, and in consequence the Commissioner had not tendered all the evidence and put all the arguments that he would have relied on.

3. The applicant contended and contends that Smith DCJ had no jurisdiction to set aside his earlier judgment and orders. The contention rests on s 46(8) of the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985 (SA), which provides: "No further appeal lies against a decision of the Court made on an appeal under this section." This prevents an appeal from a Supreme Court judge to the Full Court. The applicant contends that on its true construction s 46(8) also prevented the Commissioner's successful challenge to Smith DCJ.

4. In 2010 the applicant challenged Smith DCJ's orders and many other orders made by officials and courts in South Australia. The Supreme Court of South Australia (Gray J) dismissed that challenge. An application for leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Vanstone, Anderson and Stanley JJ), which was brought nearly six months out of time, was dismissed. The Full Court rejected the applicant's s 46(8) argument. There are no prospects of demonstrating error in that conclusion. Nor do the vexatious and embarrassing submissions of the applicant indicate any other ground on which an appeal to this Court might succeed.

5. The applicant's application for special leave to appeal to this Court is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

   J.D. Heydon  V.M. Bell
   29 February 2012