1. GORDON J. This is an ex parte application for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ against the Commonwealth of Australia.
2. On 28 July 2025, Steward J directed that, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the application for a constitutional or other writ was not to be issued or filed without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant. This application for leave to issue or file the application is supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant on 29 July 2025. I have read the applicant's affidavit as well as the proposed application for a constitutional or other writ.
3. The proposed application for a constitutional or other writ against the Commonwealth of Australia states that since 7 October 2023, violent scenes in the Middle East have been broadcast to the world, and, though violence is being perpetrated by "both sides", it is apparent that one side has done disproportionate damage and harm to the other. The application refers to "numerous protests, rallies and public disruptions in reaction to this particular international conflict" and states that strong emotional reactions within the community and the Australian Government's response have motivated this "application to order the Commonwealth to fulfill its duty to cease alleged complicity in the Palestine‑Israel international conflict". The balance of the application then states that a writ of mandamus should issue because the requisite elements are satisfied: there is a Commonwealth officer, a public duty and an unfulfilled performance, namely that the "subjects of the Commonwealth must comply with the criminal law", specifically Pt 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
4. The relief that the applicant seeks in the proposed application for a constitutional or other writ is, relevantly:

"1. The Commonwealth of Australia is to comply with the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) in response to the international conflict between the State of Israel, Palestinian territories and other Middle‑Eastern countries as of 2025.

1. The Governor-General and AFP Minister are to specify all terrorist organisation [sic] in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of terrorist organisation in Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
2. The Governor-General and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade are to make regulations sanctioning all terrorist organisation [sic] under the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth) to specifically comply with:

a) s 102.7 of [the] Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) by ensuring subjects of the Commonwealth do not provide support to terrorist organisation [sic]. > > b) s 103.1 of [the] Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) by ensuring subjects of the Commonwealth do not finance terrorist organisation [sic]." (emphasis in original)

3. The ex parte application filed on 31 July 2025 for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ must be refused. Neither the application for a constitutional or other writ against the Commonwealth of Australia, nor the applicant's supporting affidavit, discloses any rational legal argument that could support the relief sought. The claims set out in the proposed application are manifestly hopeless. Moreover, the proposed defendant, the Commonwealth of Australia, is inconsistent with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the relief sought, which identify a number of individuals in different capacities. The applicant seeks to invoke this Court's jurisdiction on a basis that is "confused or manifestly untenable",[1] and it would be an abuse of process if the proposed application was filed.
4. Given that a document the subject of an application under r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules is to be considered "on its face",[2] it is implicit that the application falls to be determined without an oral hearing.[3] The ex parte application filed on 31 July 2025 for leave to issue or file an application for a constitutional or other writ is refused.

[1] Re Young [2020] HCA 13; (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; [2020] HCA 13; 376 ALR 567 at 570.

[2] High Court Rules, r 6.07.1.

[3] Re Young [2020] HCA 13; (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [12]; [2020] HCA 13; 376 ALR 567 at 570.