Bailiff v Australian Capital Territory Police

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The District Registrar for the Australian Capital Territory has brought to my attention three proposed applications sought to be filed by the intended applicants in the Australian Capital Territory District Registry of this Court. The District Registrar believes that the applications, on their face, are an abuse of process of the Court or are frivolous or vexatious, and seeks a direction under O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules. 2 Order 46 r 7A provides "If a document presented to a Registry in any proceeding, including any document which is or will if issued become an originating document, appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious, the Registrar may refuse to accept or issue it or may seek the direction of a Judge who may direct him: (a) to accept or issue it; or (b) to refuse to accept or issue it; or (c) to refuse to accept or issue it without the leave of a Judge first had and obtained." 3 The first application, which was presented on 2 January 2001, names 284 respondents being the Commonwealth, State and Territory Police forces, Commonwealth and State Directors of Public Prosecution, ombudsmen, governors, parliaments, universities and corporations as well as the nations of the world. 4 The second application which was presented on 9 January 2001, names major Australian political parties as well as duplicating some respondents' names from the first application. 5 The third application ("Judicial Application"), presented on 16 January 2001, names each Federal Magistrate and each Judge of the principal superior courts in each jurisdiction within Australia. Other persons and bodies which may or may not have legal personality are each named as "Amicus Curiae". 6 The third application was considered on 16 February 2001 by Madgwick J. His Honour, who along with every other Judge of this Court and others, was named as a respondent, first considered whether he was entitled to consider the application or whether he should disqualify himself on the ground of bias. His Honour, in my view correctly, decided that he should not disqualify himself and therefore considered the Judicial Application in so far as it related to the respondents other than himself. Madgwick J ordered the District Registrar: (a) to refuse to accept or issue the Judicial Application except in so far as it affected himself; and (b) to seek the direction of another Judge of the Court in so far as that application related to Madgwick J. 7 In compliance within these orders, the District Registrar has referred the Judicial Application, in so far as it applies to Madgwick J, and the first and second applications to me. The applications make claims that are largely the same if not identical. As Madgwick J expressed it [Bailiff v The Honourable Anthony Murray Gleeson [2001] FCA 344 at para 10], "the application indicates that the intended applicant is claiming relief for the supposed failure of some 1788 public officials (and apparently also every diplomat posted to Australia) to perform a "duty in accordance with High Court Rules"; the supposed failure to call a Royal Commission of Inquiry; the supposed failure to assist the intended applicant in requesting political asylum; supposed violation of unnamed "United Nations Covenants" by every member of the United Nations; and supposed negligence for violation of those unnamed "United Nations Covenants". There are other matters. One deduces only that the underlying grievance, which gives rise to the document presented, in some way originates from a belief that someone has failed to perform a supposed public duty, and that this delayed Mr Bailiff, the intended first applicant "from earning from international implementation of [some unspecified] commercial strategy [he] developed at 19". 8 The interlocutory relief sought is as follows: "Caveats are sought on all assets of all Respondents until final payments of amounts owed by each of the public officials, institutions and countries for negligence due to violation of United Nations Covenants, has been paid in gold." 9 Before me today Mr Bailiff sought an adjournment on the ground that he has not had sufficient time to prepare his submissions because his time has been taken up by his 90 other applications before the Federal Court. This might be a ground for seeking to delay a hearing of an application but it carries no weight in relation to the issue before me today and accordingly I refused to adjourn the Court. 10 In his submissions concerning whether he should be allowed to file the applications, Mr Bailiff referred to the three applications before me as belonging to the "Tuesday family" of five applications. The other two applications were not before me. He submitted that it was not possible to decide whether he should be allowed to file the three applications before me today without considering the remaining two applications in the "Tuesday family". I disagree. 11 In my opinion, this is an appropriate case for a direction under O 46 r 7A(b) for the reasons given by Madgwick J. I respectfully adopt those reasons in relation to the three applications that I have to consider. Accordingly, I will direct the District Registrar not to accept or issue the documents presented on behalf of the intended applicants. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.