Ramsey v Skyring

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 6 July 1999 Sackville J ordered that Mr Skyring could not initiate proceedings in this Court without leave of the Court: Ramsey v Skyring (1999) 164 ALR 378; [1999] FCA 907. An appeal against this decision was subsequently dismissed by the Full Court: Skyring v Ramsey [2000] FCA 774. 2 On 4 September 2013 Mr Skyring filed an originating application in which he sought an order of the Court granting him leave to file an application in the form exhibited as AGS-1 to his affidavit filed on the same date. 3 In summary, Mr Skyring wishes to file an application for an order of review of a decision of the Australian Electoral Commissioner because: In relation to the recent Federal Election, the Australian Electoral Commissioner accepted "nomination deposits" in relation to Electoral Divisions of the House of Representatives (including in relation to the Electoral Division of Ryan) in the form of "Australian Notes" or "Bank cheques". The tender of money in that form did not comply with the requirements of s 16 and the Schedule thereto of the Currency Act 1965 (Cth) and therefore was not "legal tender of payment of money" throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. Accordingly, nominations were improperly accepted by the Australian Electoral Commissioner. There is no nexus between the values of "paper money" and "the legal tender coinage of the Realm" of the same face value. Notwithstanding that "bank cheques" are "allowed" under s 170(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), recourse to such means to make "nomination deposits" is effectively outlawed on constitutional grounds. 4 Mr Skyring wishes to contend, inter alia, that: A breach of natural justice has occurred. The decision of the Australian Electoral Commissioner was not authorised by the relevant enactment. The decision involved an error of law. The decision was induced or affected by fraud. The decision was otherwise contrary to law. 5 The matter was listed in Court this morning for directions, however as Mr Skyring indicated that he was in a position to prosecute his application for leave this morning I heard that application. 6 In oral submissions, Mr Skyring submitted (in summary) that the Court ought grant him leave in this case because: There had never been a final determination by the High Court of Australia of that which constitutes legal tender in this country. Mr Skyring directed my attention to the decision of Mason, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ in In the matter of an application by Alan George Skyring (unreported, HCA, 9 July 1985) which he submitted was not a determinative decision of the High Court. In 1984 Gibbs J refused to allow him to file applications for the issue of writs in the High Court. Mr Skyring submitted that, as a result, he was denied the opportunity to pursue to finality legitimate causes of action. A critical point is whether paper money constitutes legal tender in Australia. The rejection of his claims by the Federal Court and High Court is symptomatic of corruption in the Commonwealth, including in the judiciary. 7 It is clear that, on many occasions over several decades, Mr Skyring has sought to challenge the validity of paper money as legal tender, in particular in circumstances where money in either note or cheque form is paid in the context of electoral nominations. Relevant cases include Re Skyring's Application (No 2) (1985) 58 ALR 629; Skyring v Ramsey [2003] FCA 745; In the matter of Skyring [2004] FCA 827; Re Skyring [2013] QSC 197. The claim Mr Skyring proposes in this case is of a similar nature. Specifically, in claiming that the Australian Electoral Commissioner improperly accepted nomination deposits in the form of notes or bank cheques, in the context of the recent Federal Election, Mr Skyring claims that: … it is to be noted that the Perth Mint still issues and puts into circulation coins in its Gold Nugget series, the first of which was put into circulation as 'legal tender' coinage following a very public ceremony in Sydney on the 23th April 1987 when the Prime Minister of the day, then one R.J.L Hawke, signed and then presented a personal cheque made out in the amount of $1236.00 in exchange for a 'souvenir' set of 4 of these coins having an aggregate face value of only $190.00. Although the ramifications of that action then by a personage having 'a very high profile, politically' in this country seemed not to have been generally realised at that time, what that 'very public action in fact did was to 'completely and utterly destroy' from that time, a 'nexus' which had been held from well before the time of Federation in this country between the values of 'paper money and 'the legal tender' coinage of the Realm' OF THE SAME FACE VALUE, whereby each could be 'exchanged at par' with the other. The relevance of these matters to the Electoral situation simply is that there is NOW NO 'CONNECTION' WHATSOEVER between the 'monetary values' values represented by 'paper money' and those represented by the 'coinage of the Realm' of the same nominal face value, which is regarded 'in constitutional terms' as providing the 'ultimate reference for monetary values' across this nation. (Format and errors in original).