Why snapperheads on Facebook who think they know the law need a lawyer.

Wednesday , 20, January 2016 Leave a comment


Ever heard these guys on Facebook quoting the Criminal Code saying how the Government is Corrupt and the Court is Corrupt and how they are violating the Criminal Code blah blah…. like this ..

Geoff_Barkla_1

Going on how the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions is a fraud and how they will file in the Federal Court and lets see how they go “defending the undefendable”

Geoff_Barkla_2

Quite a bit of bravado and chest thumping going on here right?  You will notice he doesn’t mention it actually went to trial and what happened on the 21 December 2015.

snapperhead

CASE : Barkla v Colbran [2015] FCA 1470

What was the case about ? 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for judicial review of the District Registrar’s decision not to accept the applicant’s originating application and affidavit for filing.

So Mr Barkla tried to file a complaint in the Court himself and the Registrar rejected it.

This was a case questioning the Registrar’s decision not to accept the applicant’s information and summons for filing.

Mr Barkla claimed the District Registrar acted fraudulently, dishonestly and in abuse of public office by not accepting the documents.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – The question came down to whether  whether the Court has jurisdiction to issue the information and summons and  whether the proceeding is without merit and is an abuse of processFederal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01.

Held: Proceedings dismissed.

Note the silence on Mr Barkla’s page now about this result.

Why was it dismissed you may ask ?  Well this is what the judge said about the documents Mr Barkla tried to file.

” I will refer to these documents as “the rejected documents”. Under r 2.26, a Registrar may refuse to accept a document if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious on the face of the document or by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document.”

The rejected documents involve a claim by Mr Barkla against the Acting Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Mr Barkla claims to bring his proceeding in a representative capacity.

The basis of Mr Barkla’s claim appears to be the refusal of the Acting Court of Appeal Registrar to accept two documents Mr Barkla sought to file, being a document entitled “Referral of a legal issue” and a document entitled a “Notice to Admit Facts”. Mr Barkla alleges that in refusing to accept the documents, the Acting Court of Appeal Registrar contravened various sections of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

This is what the District Registrar told Mr Barkla at the time of rejecting the documents.

  The District Registrar refused to accept the rejected documents and, on 4 November 2015, she wrote to Mr Barkla in the following terms:

I refer to the originating application and affidavit you sent to the Registry on 2 November 2015.

Among other things, your application claims that the respondent is in breach of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (false or misleading documents, general dishonest and abuse of public office). The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to the Criminal Code Act 1995 as outlined in your application, nor the other pieces of legislation you have included. The Court cannot make the findings that you seek.

Accordingly, I am unable to accept your documents for filing pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The usual course of action for parties who wish to appeal the decision of a registrar of a court is to seek to have the decision reviewed by a judge of that court. I am unfamiliar with the procedure in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, but you may wish to enquire further as to a suitable course of action.

I return your documents to you.

Mr Barkla claims that in refusing to accept the rejected documents, the District Registrar acted fraudulently, dishonestly and in abuse of public office.

What did the Court say ?

This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application Mr Barkla seeks to bring against the Acting Court of Appeal Registrar, and the District Registrar was correct in deciding to refuse to accept the rejected documents.

The information and summons (“the rejected documents”) are directed to two justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The basis of Mr Barkla’s claims appears to be that the judges acted dishonestly in connection with a “Notice to Admit Facts”, and a “Referral of a legal issue” and a claim which he makes.

So Mr Barkla wanted to sue the judges under the Criminal Code 1995.

The District Registrar refused to accept the rejected documents and, on 4 November 2015, she wrote to Mr Barkla in the following terms:

I refer to the summons you provided to the Registry on 4 November 2015 that seeks to summons Justice Newnes and Justice Murphy of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The Federal Court of Australia does not have jurisdiction to issue the summons you request. Like all other citizens judges are subject to the law. However, in respect of their judicial conduct, they cannot be subject to direct discipline by anyone else, except in the extreme cases of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. In those circumstances, and in those only, a judge may be removed from office by the Governor-General upon a request from both Houses of the Parliament.

Judges are accountable through the public nature of their work, the requirement that they give reasons for their decision and the scrutiny of their decisions on appeal.

Accordingly, I am unable to accept your documents for filing pursuant to Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has a Protocol for Complaints against Judicial Officers in Western Australia. It can be found at http://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/C/complaints_against_judical_officers.aspx?uid=6960-4191-1980-2236. Any complaint about a member of the judiciary should be made in writing to the Chief Justice.

I return your documents to you.

Again the Court agreed with the District Registrar’s decision under r 2.26 was plainly correct for the reasons she gave.

So ultimately the Court Held that is had no Jurisdiction (as the Registrar had advised Mr Barkla) and regarding the complanit against the registrar :

the proceeding is wholly without merit and is an abuse of process and vexatious…”

Finally there was one issue remaining, that of costs

I have reached the conclusion that each of the three proceedings should be dismissed. In her Submitting Notices, the District Registrar said that she wanted to be heard on the question of costs. I will reserve to the District Registrar the right to apply for costs in SAD 403 of 2015 and in SAD 410 of 2015 within 21 days.

Moral of the story is don’t believe all the garbage you hear on the internet and before you proceed always seek legal advice.

Had Mr Barkla gone to see a Lawyer he would have been advised and informed that his  case was doomed to fail and not to proceed and saved himself time and money.



%d bloggers like this: