22 Aug 2023
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant merely relitigated matters previously decided, the Court's brief reasons complied with s 77, and no procedural or substantive error was established that would meet the exceptional threshold for recall or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
27 Mar 2019
Judicial review dismissed. Section 26 is a limited ex parte screening mechanism; it does not impose a legal obligation to serve defendants, hold a hearing or provide a full written judgment, and a Judge may permissibly take into account relevant material beyond formal witness statements when assessing whether the evidence is insufficient to justify a trial; the formal statements filed (even excluding hearsay) provided an arguable evidential basis to justify filing the charges, so the District Court Judge's decision to accept the charging documents was lawful.
17 Nov 2017
Judge Down made errors of law by failing to direct the applicant to file formal statements and exhibits under s 26(1)(b) and by obtaining and relying on Judge Sharp's civil judgment (material inadmissible in criminal context under s 50 Evidence Act); accordingly his directions of 27 January 2017 must be set aside in relation to the perjury and false statement charges and the Registrar must refer the applicant's documents to a District Court Judge for direction under s 26(1)(b).
19 Sept 2016
The Court held there was no jurisdiction to appeal under s296 because the charging documents had not been accepted for filing and therefore no person had been charged; s296 requires a charge and proceedings relating to or following determination of the charge; the appellant's remedy is judicial review.
27 Mar 2013
Following final appellate treatment of respondent's criminal conviction, respondent instituted a sustained pattern of baseless civil proceedings, private prosecutions and repeated recall applications that constituted persistent, scandalous and abusive litigation without reasonable grounds; accordingly the Court granted an order under s88B restraining the institution or continuation of civil proceedings by respondent without leave.
1 May 2012
The proceeding is struck out under High Court Rules r 15.1(1)(a) and (d) because the pleaded facts do not disclose any reasonably arguable cause of action and the proceeding is an abuse of process constituting an impermissible collateral attack on matters conclusively determined by appellate courts; the Court cannot order the Attorney-General as to his legal advice and the subpoenas amounted to an abuse of process.