RESPONSE FROM THE ELECTORATE OFFICER OF MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT HELEN MORTON MLC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 4:37 PM
To: 'Morton, Helen'
Subject: RE: CIV 1604 FO 2010: PRINCIPLE OF LAW DOES NOT EXIST IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Mary-Anne Reid
The office of Hon Helen Morton MLC
Member for East Metropolitan Region
Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier; Treasurer; Minister for State Development
and to the Minister for Water; Mental Health
Dear Ms. Reid
The decision below is by the High Court which states that my case depends on the credibility of the trial judge His Honour Justice Chaney. If Justice Chaney, Justice Heenan and Justice Le Miere refused to make a legal determination on the single issue of the Usurpation by the Pseudo Board, there will be no solution to my problem. The only solution is then left for the Parliament of Western Australia to compel the judges to do justice in accordance with the law and with their respective oaths of office. There cannot exist cronyism in Western Australia to the extent that its citizen is being tortured against the United Nations Convention of Torture. If the WA government does not do something about the criminality of this torture, then nothing will happen.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN

Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2010] HCASL 4 (10 March 2010)
Last Updated: 12 March 2010
NI KOK (NICHOLAS) CHIN v LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
[2010] HCASL 4 P36/2009
1. The respondent imposed conditions on the applicant's practising certificate, pursuant to s 40(3) of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), requiring that he practise only as an employed solicitor and that his work be closely supervised. The State Administrative Tribunal (Chaney J, Ms M Jordan and Mr B Hunt) conducted a de novo hearing and affirmed the decision of the respondent. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Pullin and Newnes JJA) dismissing the applicant's appeal against orders of the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's submissions, including that the respondent did not have jurisdiction to impose the conditions without some finding of incapacity or unfitness or some disciplinary proceedings being successful against the practitioner and, alternatively, that the conditions were not necessary. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have the proper appreciation of, and did not observe, the standards of conduct expected of legal practitioners.
3. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal on the basis, inter alia, that no ground of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The proposed grounds were prolix, contained vexatious and offensive material and did not raise any doubt about the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, nor any other basis for granting leave in the interest of justice.
4. Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
5. The applicant's written submissions raise no arguable ground for the grant of special leave. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal and any appeal would have insufficient prospects of success.
6. The application is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1. That order should be refused for the reason that even if it were granted, it is inevitable that the application for special leave to appeal would be dismissed.
7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
K.M. Hayne
10 March 2010
S.M. Crennan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Reid, MaryAnne [mailto:MaryAnne.Reid@mp.wa.gov.au] On Behalf Of Morton, Helen
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:24 AM
To: Nicholas N Chin
Cc: Morton, Helen
Subject: RE: CIV 1604 FO 2010: PRINCIPLE OF LAW DOES NOT EXIST IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Dear Mr Chin
After contact with our office in 2009, Mrs Morton sent the attached letter.
Mrs Morton has been made aware that your opportunities for review have been utilised – with the decision of the Legal Practice Board being upheld by the State Administrative Tribunal in October 2008, and the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) refusing to grant leave to appeal in June 2009. As such, two separate bodies have provided an independent review of original decision made by the Legal Practice Board, and effectively upheld the conditions placed on your Practice Certificate.
As per the letter from this office dated 23 October 2009, the office of Attorney General is best place to comment on this matter.
Kind regards,
Mary-Anne Reid
The office of Hon Helen Morton MLC
Member for East Metropolitan Region
Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier; Treasurer; Minister for State Development
and to the Minister for Water; Mental Health
Suite 2, 201-205 Burslem Drive Maddington, Western Australia 6109
T: 61 8 9452 8311 F: 61 8 9452 8366 E: maryanne.reid@mp.wa.gov.au