Bahonko, in the matter of Bahonko [2013] FCA 683

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 4 July 2013 Mrs Stanislawa Bahonko attended at the Victoria District Registry of the Court. She sought to file four documents. They were: An originating application; A summons; An information; and An affidavit sworn by her on that day. 2 The originating application did not seek any final relief. It sought an injunction against Judge Saccardo of the County Court of Victoria. She sought orders that he be restrained from making any orders in relation to her and from commencing contempt proceedings against her or ordering her arrest or imprisonment. 3 The information and summons alleged that a large number of defendants were guilty of offences under ss 34, 35, 36, 36A, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The persons against whom these allegations were directed included two High Court Justices, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the President of the Court of Appeal of Victoria, the Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria, the Chief Magistrate of Victoria, a number of Victorian Judges and Magistrates, the Victorian Attorney-General and Court Registrars. 4 The "affidavit" was handwritten and was unsworn. It contained a number of scandalous allegations. The gist of them was that the judicial officers had conspired against her and that Judge Saccardo was part of a "criminal ring" which was proposing falsely to charge and imprison her upon fabricated contempt of court charges. She complained that attempts by her to lay the charges in State courts had been or would be rejected by Registry or judicial officers. 5 The Acting District Registrar of this Court refused to accept the documents and returned them to Mrs Bahonko. He acted under Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). 6 Rule 2.26 relevantly provides: "A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious: (a) on the face of the document; or (b) …" 7 The Acting District Registrar advised Mrs Bahonko that this Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the criminal charges which she sought to refer and advised her that, under s 68(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), "the jurisdiction to hear and determine offences against laws of the Commonwealth is conferred upon State Courts." 8 Upon being advised of the Acting District Registrar's decision Mrs Bahonko promptly filed an originating application for judicial review of his decision. The application contained a considerable number of unparticularised grounds such as the "decision is wrong and corrupt", "abuse of the office", "obstruction of justice", "abetting organised crime", "conduct endangering life of [the applicant]" and "denial of natural justice". 9 A short affidavit was filed in support of the application. In it Mrs Bahonko affirmed that "[o]n 04/07/13 I wanted to commence criminal proceeding against organised crime within the administration of justice in my WorkCover case represented now by Judge Saccardo and [Registrar] Daniel Caporale denied me (sic) legal right and refused documents for filing." 10 When the matter was called on for hearing this morning Mrs Bahonko made an application that I should recuse myself from hearing her application on the ground of bias. She said orally that there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias because I had heard a previous case in this Court in which she had been involved. In written submissions seeking that I recuse myself she alleged that the reasonable observer would consider me to be biased because I was an "Irish" judge and therefore had a conflict of interest. 11 The test for bias is well known. It is whether a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question he or she is required to decide. 12 I do not consider that a fair minded observer might reasonably apprehend that I was biased for either of the reasons that Mrs Bahonko has advanced. I, therefore, rejected her recusal application. 13 I assume without deciding that a single judge of the Court may deal with an application for judicial review of an administrative decision of a Registrar of the Court. 14 No reviewable error has been established. This Court has no relevant criminal jurisdiction. The Acting District Registrar was correct in so determining. Section 19(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides that the Court has such original jurisdiction as is vested in it by laws made by the Parliament. Mrs Bahonko was unable to point to any Commonwealth statute which conferred jurisdiction on the Court to hear and determine criminal charges of the kind presently alleged. On the contrary the Judiciary Act, as the Acting District Registrar said, confers such jurisdiction on State Courts. 15 The mistaken attempt to engage the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with the criminal charges referred to by Mrs Bahonko was plainly an abuse of process. That abuse was apparent on the face of the documents presented to the Registry. 16 The Acting District Registrar was perfectly correct to refuse to receive the documents. I might add that he would have had other grounds for refusal had he wished to act on them because, as I have already indicated, some of those documents contained serious unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations against judicial officers and Court officials. 17 The application will be dismissed. I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey.