MY LETTER TO HIS HONOUR JUSTICE MURRAY
Our Ref: CIV1689 OF 2011.
Your Ref: SSO 3289-10
Wednesday, January 11,
2012
The Associate to the Hon. Justice
Michael John Murray
Supreme Court ofWestern Australia
Supreme Court of
Your Ref: CIV1689/11
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Your Ref: CIV1689/11
Fax: 08- 9221 4436 BY FACSIMILE
The
Executive Officer
State
Administrative Tribunal
Fourth
Floor, 12 St. Georges Terrace
Phone:
9219 3111
Fax:
9325 5099
Atten:
Associate to Deputy President of SAT Judge Sharp
Your VR87 of 2009 BY FACSIMILE
The State Solicitor for Western Australia
141 St. Georges Terrace
Atten: Ms. Kah Yee Loh,
Solicitor.
Fax: 08 9264 1670 BY FACSIMILE
The Attorney General of Western Australia
The Honourable Christian
Porter MLC
Email: "minister.porter"
<Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au>
Dear Sir
CIV 1689 OF 2011: THE
PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT V CHIN [2012] WASC 7
I refer to the above judgment
of His Honour Justice Murray delivered on 10th day of January, 2011.
I would like to state as
follows:
1) I
understood that His Honour Justice Heenan first decided in CIV 1877 of 2010 and
CIV 1981 of 2010 that a Supreme Court Judge of the Supreme Court of Western
Australia does not have the jurisdiction to exercise Prerogative Writ powers
upon fellow judges of the same rank for the first time. But those are inchoate decisions that have
the effect of adjourning the two cases sini
die which, however, were marred by the about-turn decision of His
Honour in CIV 1019 of 2010. Therefore,
I was never afforded the opportunity to become aware of the Unavailability of
the Prerogative Writs Approach for the purpose of reviewing a Supreme Court
Judge decision (the Unavailability of the Prerogative Writ Approach).
2) By
virtue of the my becoming aware of the Unavailability of the Prerogative Writ
Approach through His Honour Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010 where
there was a clear explanation of this principle for the first time, I cannot therefore be blamed and be adjudged as a
Vexatious Litigant by His Honour Justice Murray. The situation is further exacerbated by the
fact that all the other Supreme Court Judges (with due respect to them) evaded
the four issues before them and never made any pronouncements concerning them
in their various and varied judgments (the Four Issues).
3) The
four issues that have never been decided before by all or any of the Justices
in the past and there are therefore never res judicata,
and consequently, I was never barred
by the principles of res judicata to have them re-adjudicated. They are in terms of the following (the
Non-Res Judicata Issues):
3.1.
The malice of the LPCC in taking away my independence as a lawyer for no
professional misconduct and this matter is currently before the Deputy
President of SAT, His Honour Judge
Sharp;
3.2.
My alleged false allegations against solicitor Timothy Robin Thies for
pillaging and plundering his client,
which have been proven true and is currently before the Court in CIV3427 of
2011;
3.3.
My alleged false allegations against solicitor David Taylor for the
falsifications of court records,
which have also been proven true and is currently before the Court in an
Application about to be lodged with the Supreme Court soon;
3.4.
The Justice Steytler Consent Judgment entered into between the regulator of the
legal profession in WA and myself in CACV43 of 2007 on 26.9.2007 eliminating
the phantom professional knowledge deficiency syndrome of Her Honour Judge
Eckert in VR137 of 2006.
4)
The Non-Res
Judicata Issues are public interest issues in terms of the following (the
Public Interests Issue):
4.1. Lawyers must be properly regulated so that they cannot
be seen to be plundering and pillaging their own clients and as a result
advancing their own personal interest over their client’s interests as in the
case of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies;
4.2. Lawyers must be properly regulated so that they cannot
be seen to be falsifying court records to the effect of committing criminal
offences like perjury and falsifications of court records with impunity;
4.3. The regulator of the legal profession must not be seen
to be practicing cronyism or paying deference to their friends for the purpose
of reducing the independence of the Bar thereby reducing the efficiency of the
judicial system in Western Australia.
Just as the Judiciary needs to be independent,
so there must exists the corresponding independence of the Bar so that the
Integrity Aspects of the Judicial System in WA is being maintained.
4.4. Jurisdictional Errors of Judges must be reduced as
much as possible and Errors of Laws apparent on the Court Records must be
eliminated so as to raise public confidence in our judicial system.
5.
The State
Solicitor as the solicitor of the State Government and being the Department of
the Attorney General of Western Australia has a duty to promote better
governance for Western Australia ,
it is acting as the solicitor of the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of
Western Australia. The latter being a public officer has a duty to ensure that
the justice system of WA is promoting the public interest and not the private
interests of certain private individuals or some vested interests. As such,
it looks as though there is a highly improper exercise of discretion for His
Honour Justice Murray to order costs for the prevailing party in CIV 1689 of
2011.
6.
I therefore appeal to
the Attorney General of WA not to interfere with the independence of the
judiciary but to promote the Integrity Aspects of our Judicial system as His
Honour Justice Murray might have unwittingly betray its weakness. The aspired Integrity Aspects of our Judicial
System of WA is in accord with the similar aspirations of His Honour Justice
James Spigelman AC, Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of NSW as expressed in his lecture entitled: JURISDICTION AND INTEGRITY: THE SECOND LECTURE
IN THE 2004 NATIONAL LECTURE SERIES FOR THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 5 AUGUST 2004 available at the website: http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_speech_spigelman050804
(the Jurisdictional Error of Justice Murray).
7.
I know His Honour
Justice Murray is a conscientious judge but he does commit jurisdictional
errors which renders his decision as a purported one only (with due
respect). Accordingly, His Honour has a continuing obligation to review
his decision as he is still not ex
functus officio. Although the
judgment of His Honour is near perfect,
yet I apologize to His Honour for trying
to be too perfect. As far as I see, the constituent elements of His Honour’s Jurisdictional Errors would seem
to be:
o
the denial of
procedural fairness to me by not taking into account my arguments and letters
to all disputing parties that were before the court,
o
the
identification of the wrong issues,
o
the asking of
wrong questions;
o
ignoring relevant
materials;
o
relying on irrelevant
materials,
o
the making
erroneous findings of facts or law;
o
the reaching of mistaken
conclusions of facts or law;
o
the determination
of critical facts where there is no evidence;
o
the making of irrational
and illogical reasoning in the fact finding process;
o
the misapprehension
of the law;
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Labels: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION DO NOT ATTRACT INTIMIDATORY COST ORDERS
posted by Nicholas N Chin @ 4:36 PM
4 Comments
You have to laugh
at the boldness and hypocrisy with which Corrupt Public Servants are displaying
on the High Courts website, a copy of a speech made by former Judge Michael
Kirby entitled: