TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN CIV 1397 OF 2012 BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ON 12.3.2012

Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia.  Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the attorney-general is prohibited.  Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding.

THE SUPREME COURT OF

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

1397 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW

MARTIN CJ

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON MONDAY, 12 MARCH 2012, AT 2.09 PM

MR M.F. LAW appeared in person

12/3/12                                                 1

(s&c)

THE ASSOCIATE:   In the Supreme Court, CIV 1397 of 2012 in the matter of Maurice Frederick Law.

MARTIN CJ:   Yes, Mr Law?

LAW, MR:   Good afternoon, sir. 

MARTIN CJ:   Yes, Mr Law, you appear on your own behalf?

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

MARTIN CJ:   What would you like to say?

LAW, MR:   I didn't quite hear.

MARTIN CJ:   What would you like to say in support of your application?

LAW, MR:   I would like Chaney J to recuse himself from further hearing my case because his Honour had prejudged, on 24 February 2012, my case of 13/3/12, on the issue that he was supposed to decide on the future date, 13/3/12.  The issues and complaints numbers 6 and 7 have already been dismissed by President Chaney on 24/2/12.

      The fact that the issue of complaint 5 is going to be dismissed on 13/3/12 is a foregone conclusion.  Any child can understand that.

MARTIN CJ:   Well, I don't understand that.  Why do you say that's a foregone conclusion that that complaint is going to be dismissed?

LAW, MR:   Well, he has dismissed the previous 6 and 7, and I feel that he's going to dismiss this further issue.

MARTIN CJ:   Why do you say he has acted so as to have prejudged that issue?  There's nothing in the materials before me that would support that, is there?

LAW, MR:   I say the actions that have judged where I have got the evidence of the situation and he's dismissed those complaints, my complaints against David Taylor are frivolous, vexatious and irrelevant, and they're not.

MARTIN CJ:   You see, you haven't given me the reasons for the decision that he gave on the previous occasion, 24 February, have you?  That's not in the material.  I have hardly anything of the proceedings before the tribunal.  I wonder if I could have the affidavit please?  You see, I don't know what complaints 6 and 7 are, how they relate to complaint 5.  I don't know the reasons.

LAW, MR:   I have an order of SAT here if that's of any help.  You see, the evidence that I have requested is not

12/3/12                LAW, MR                          2

being produced which I saw in the offices of SAT on

30 November 2011.

MARTIN CJ:   Yes.

LAW, MR:   That's a crucial part of evidence and it's not being produced to me.  I was not allowed to take a copy that time.

MARTIN CJ:   Have you applied to his Honour to disqualify himself, to Chaney J, on the basis of prejudgment?

LAW, MR:   No, sir.

MARTIN CJ:   You see, that is the usual course.  The usual course is not to come to a court like this and ask us to interfere.  The usual course is to ask the judicial officer to disqualify themselves, and in the event that they fail to disqualify themselves, then you have a right of appeal.

LAW, MR:   Would that be just before the hearing, would it?

MARTIN CJ:   You could seek to exercise the right of appeal before the hearing or you could wait until the hearing is conduct, and if things go against you, you could appeal on the basis that the judge should have disqualified himself, but it's not the usual practice for this court to, as it were, pre-empt those decisions by making its own view about whether a judge should recuse themselves.  That's ordinarily left to the judge for themselves to determine because Chaney J is in the best position of all to know whether he can bring a fair and impartial mind to bear upon the issues that you want determined.

LAW, MR:   I see.

MARTIN CJ:   Is there any reason why that normal course shouldn't be followed?

LAW, MR:   I guess if it's normal I would attune to that.

MARTIN CJ:   All right.  I think until Chaney J himself has the opportunity to consider what you want to say, it would be premature for this court to do anything, wouldn't it?

LAW, MR:   I see.

MARTIN CJ:   Should I then simply dismiss your proceedings today?  That would be the best course, wouldn't it?

LAW, MR:   I guess so, sir.

MARTIN CJ:   Yes, all right.  For that reason then, I think you should raise these issues with Chaney J tomorrow and your application this afternoon will be dismissed.

12/3/12                LAW, MR                          3

LAW, MR:   Thank you.

MARTIN CJ:   Thank you, Mr Law.

AT 2.14 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY

12/3/12                LAW, MR                          4