Boege v Attorney General of New South Wales

Judgment

1. Ms Boege has applied for another inquiry under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) into her "AVO Conviction", which she explained in her April 2017 submission was an application dealt with by O'Connor LCM in January 2000. Ms Boege also makes reference to what transpired on her unsuccessful appeal to the District Court and asks for her assault conviction to be reviewed.
2. Ms Boege was convicted of having assaulted her former husband in October 1999 at Bega, for which she was fined $500. An apprehended violence order was then made for the protection of Mr Boege, in proceedings in which she was legally represented. Her appeal from that conviction failed.
3. Ms Boege has made four previous applications, each of which were dismissed by the Court: Boege v Attorney General of New South Wales [2016] NSWSC 1469; Application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 729; Further application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 1925; and Application by Petronella Boege for an inquiry into conviction and sentence pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (Supreme Court (NSW), Adamson J, 27 March 2012, unrep).
4. Following Adamson J's decision in 2012, Ms Boege also unsuccessfully petitioned the Governor of New South Wales, asking for a review of the conviction pursuant to s 76 of the Act.
5. In Boege v Attorney General of New South Wales, Harrison J refused Ms Boege's fourth application under s 79 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act, observing: "12 This matter has previously and obviously been dealt with under Part 7 of the Act. Three separate applications have been considered by three separate Supreme Court judges who all reached what amounts to the same conclusion. For what it is worth, I have revisited all of those decisions. The conclusions reached in each case are unexceptionable. I would also have reached the same conclusion as the judges who dealt with them. 13 Nothing promoted or provided by Ms Boege in the present application is new. I am completely satisfied that there are no special facts or special circumstances that justify the taking of further action. In the circumstances I refuse to consider or otherwise deal with this application. It is clearly frivolous and vexatious and a monumental waste of this Court's time. In any other litigious context it would arguably amount to an abuse of the process of the Court."