KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: THE HATRED FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ADELAIDE REGISTRY No. of 2012
BETWEEN: TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Plaintiff
and
MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
Defendant
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
To: The Defendant, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
Hon. Stephen Smith MP, Australian Government Solicitor's office, Grenfell Street, ADELAIDE S.A. 5000.
TAKE NOTICE that this application has been made by the plaintiff for the relief that is set out below on the grounds that are set out below.
IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of appearance in the office of the Registry named above.
IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save as to costs, you may file a submitting appearance in the office of the Registry named above.
THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE is as follows:
(a) where you are served with the application within Australia – 14 days from the date of service;
(b) in any other case – 42 days from the date of service.
THE RELIEF CLAIMED is:
1. An order to show cause and the relief claimed is that the Minister for Defence, Hon. Stephen Smith present the Captain Callaghan RAN Board of Inquiry report and findings in its full and entirely for inspection, consideration and assessment based on a failure to comply with a request on 11th May 2012 and this failure is a jurisdictional error of the Minister based upon denial of natural justice.
2. The second relief sought is that this is a test case against s.75 (v) of the Constitution as to the duties and responsibilities of all Ministers of the Crown to lawfully and properly attend to the administration of their Commonwealth portfolios and offices. This means that Ministers of the Crown must be responsible and not force plaintiffs to activate s.75 (v) of the Constitution based on the failure of a Minister to action a correspondence.
3. An order that the question of law be referred to the Full Court for determination of the issues raised in this application. The Question of Law is lawfully and properly answered by this Honourable Court to give guidance to all soldiers in the Australian Army and the Australian Army Reserve, namely:
1. Can the Chief of Army appoint a legal defense counsel to a soldier in the Australian Army who has been accused and charged with service offences if that soldier has refused any Australian Army legal assistance and wishes to appoint his own legal advisors and team to defend charges against him?
4. Finally, pursuant to section 75 (v) of the Constitution the Minister for Defence is an officer of the Commonwealth, and for the Minister of the Crown to ignore a request or decline to perform an overt statutory duty in the face of the Judiciary to amend the face of the public with all enabling is an injustice; thus, a denial of natural justice has occurred. The Minister for Defence had a duty to prevent a denial of natural justice and a responsibility to perform these administrative acts in a quasi-judicial function as Minister for Defence within jurisdiction as a Minister of the Crown and declined to do produce the necessary materials evidence, namely:
(a) That this Honourable Court issues constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus in respect of the Minister’s decision not to comply with the requests of 11 May 2012 in which he made decision to refuse permission to release the Board of Inquiry report conducted by Captain Callaghan RAN that was a denial of natural justice.
THE GROUNDS OF WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:
Under High Court Rule 25.03.2 the following standards are addressed:
(a) stating why the matter should not be remitted to another court or, if the plaintiff submits that it should be remitted, identifying the Court to which it should be remitted:
The Minister has made a jurisdictional error of denial of natural justice which requires constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus to be executed. Section 75 of the Constitution 1901 allows for intervention of the High Court judges where there has been a jurisdictional error, on the face of the public record, that hassled to a denial of natural justice.
(b) stating what further steps, if any, should be taken in the Court, whether by way of reference of a question of law to a Full Court or otherwise;
2. Question of Law arises is, Can the Chief of Army appoint a legal defense counsel to a soldier in the Australian Army who has been accused and charged with service offences if that soldier has refused any Australian Army legal assistance and wishes to appoint his own legal advisors and team to defend charges against him or her?
It is primary fact evidence that the plaintiff bitterly opposed and refused Chief of Army’s offer of defence counsel. The plantiff was suspicious and did fear the defence counsel appointed by Chief of Army (Wing Commander david McLeod) would not aggressively attack the prosecution case and expose the weaknesses and flaws in the prosecution case. In the end the defence counsel’s cross examination of all Crown witnesses was no more than a fire side chat (without the glass of red wine).
The question no doubt is complex but the correct answer is No. The main reason being Chief of Army exposes himself to allegations of denial of natural justice or legal practitioner misconduct, trumped-up charges and serious miscarriages of justice. .
(c) specifying the times by which, and manner in which, further steps in the Court are to be taken; and
The High Court of Australia is to issue constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus against the Minister for Defence for jurisdictional error that has led to a denial of natural justice.
(d) setting out the precise terms of the orders which the plaintiff submits should be made on the hearing of the summons.
This Hounourable Court finds the Minister for Defence in jurisdictional error that being a denial of natural justice and issues writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash the decision of the Minister for Defence to refuse permission to release the Captain Callaghan RAN Board of Inquiry and demands that the Minister perform a specific function and duty and release in full the Captain Callaghan RAN Board of Inquiry.
This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served with the application] in the summons served with this application [if no summons is to be served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time.
This application was filed by the plaintiff.
Dated: Friday, 13th day of July 2012.
(signed)........................................................................
TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
The plaintiff’s address is 592 Brighton Road, BRIGHTON S.A. 5048.
The plaintiff's address for service is 592 Brighton Road, BRIGHTON S.A. 5048.
This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served with the application] in the summons served with this application / [if no summons is to be served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time.
No comments:
Post a Comment