Attitude of the High Court

[go to HAIG REPORT home frames]

Ruth Cheetham, [good name ("cheat 'em"), for a lawyer: better name for a bookie],  Deputy Registrar, High Court of Australia, Canberra Registry <>

Ph: 02 6270 6860 Fx: 02 6273 3025

Justice Ian Callinan wants me to seek leave, to seek leave, to appeal:  that's right; you read it correctly, he wants me to seek leave to seek leave.   This is NOT A JOKE.  This is putting an extra hurdle in my way to have the High Court consider THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that the Supreme Court of Queensland [SCQ] is not prepared "to keep their house in order". Read the EVIDENCE I have published on this site.  My grounds of appeal, as you can see below is basically, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND [SCQ] IS CORRUPT.   Maybe we should look more closely at Ian Callinan J.

The Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed my appeal when I appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland [SCQ] to dismiss my application without hearing it.  Under our Australian constitution and later legislation, I have right to seek leave of the High Court to hear my appeal of the decision of the Court of Appeal.   I lodged such an application to seek leave of the High Court to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal division of the SCQ.   Importantly, my grounds were basically, that the SCQ was corrupt.  Of course, if a court is corrupt, then all decisions of that court would have to be worthless.   Under our Constitution, the High Court of Australia [HCA], as the superior court of the supreme courts of all the states and territories of Australia, has responsibility to ensure that all of those courts are operating  properly.
So, if anyone raised the spectre of the SCQ being corrupt, I believe it is poor form and in fact highly improper for the HCA to try to silence such a stance, but that is precisely what they have done.  They have tried to place barriers in the path.  Does that give you greater or lesser confidence in the High Court of Australia?
[Rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules 2004, reads:

6.07 Refusal to issue or file a document
If any writ, application, summons or other 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 seek the direction of a Justice who may direct the Registrar to issue or file it or to refuse to issue or file it without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue or file it.]

Firstly, see what the Deputy Registrar of the HCA had to say.What the Registrat of High Court said.
Well that is clearly what she wants.  Did you note her email address?  It is given again at the head of this page, in case anyone wishes to write to her expressing a view once they have read this whole page, and the pages hyperlinked to it.
She says, in her email dated 7 June, 2006, "has been referred"; past tense.  It would have been in Canberra on 29 May, 2006.  The date of this email is already 9 days after arrival in Canberra, of my application.  

HCA letter re Callinan J direction.

Callinan J made this decision of 3 August, 2006.   My application arrived in Canberra on 29 May, 2006.  That was over NINE WEEKS to make that decision.  It was ONLY ONE PAGE as can be seen below.  Ruth Cheetham said on the 7 June that it had already been given [referred] to "a Justice of the High Court".  It took over EIGHT WEEKS from that date.   So, what was happening.  There are SEVEN JUDGES of the HCA.  How many other judges of the other SIX JUDGES of the HCA had refused to make the order that Cheetham wanted?  If all other six judges had had it referred  to them but refused, that would have been an average of more than ten days per judge.   That would be quite realistic.  So, how many other judges refused to make the order desired by Cheetham.

Maybe we should consider a little more about Callinan J.

So Callinan J has found that, on the face of it, that my seeking leave to appeal is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or is vexatious.   I suggest that Callinan J. is taking a very big risk that the SCQ is actually corrupt, but that may never be discovered.  If this is a suggestion that the HCA is itself corrupt, there will be no point in my wasting my time in overcoming this extra hurdle placed in the my way.

We know the saying:  "There is no-one so blind as he who will not see [or open their eyes, even]."

[go to HAIG REPORT home]