MY LETTER TO HIS HONOUR JUSTICE MURRAY

 Nicholas Ni Kok Chin - LL.B.; B.Econs.(Business & Accountancy), Post. Grad. Dip (Business Law)

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 of Western Australia

Associate - tel (08) 9421 5400      
E-mail - Associate.Justice.Murray@justice.wa.gov.au

Your Ref: CIV1689/11

The Principal Registrar

Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Spring Garden, Barrack Street, Perth WA 6000

Your Ref: CIV1689/11

Fax: 08- 9221 4436    BY FACSIMILE

The Executive Officer

State Administrative Tribunal

Fourth Floor, 12 St. Georges Terrace

PERTH WA 6000

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

PERTH WA 6000

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 10^th 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.  In this instance, 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