top of page

District Court Judgment 12th April

Love to all and my apologies for sharing legal updates online on a Sunday, but its the first time I have had an opportunity to write due to my new full-time no income government initiated independent legal work experience training crash course.

To good people everywhere and those in the public who are aware of my history and the current legal situation and court matters that now exist as a result of that history. Approximately 12 months ago along with my other court matters I filed a statement of claim for collateral abuse against the Office of The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on the grounds that three of the ten criminal charges against me could never ever be sustained. Namely because the interim orders to which they relate could never be proved to be in force. Further to this I was appalled that the DPP would use the child abuse and sex crimes squad to charge me for ten offences that have nothing to do with either child abuse or sex crimes. My question was, if you wish to charge me why choose that department ? To take someone to court for charges, which cannot be sustained, and to also use a specific department that further implies things that are completely untrue, is most certainly in my view, vexatious. Also considering the charges mirror identical charges in another jurisdiction, and to charge someone after complying with suppression laws once they were known, further adds to this vexation. And lets not forget in the Supreme Court matter on the 8th of March that the DPP also withheld evidence essential to my defence for nearly a year.

In response, the significant independent legal organisation hired by the DPP filed a Notice of Motion to strike out my claim.

This matter was determined on the 12th of April when the Judgment was released and my collateral abuse claim was dismissed and costs awarded against me.

To share as simply as I can, and in my understanding as best I can, the defence raised four grounds and the matter was dismissed on one of those grounds only.

It is my understanding from His Honour’s Judgment, he has dismissed my statement of claim on the basis that if the Director of Public Prosecutions initiates proceedings that are considered vexatious, that this is not an improper purpose outside the scope of lawful proceedings.

In the alternative in my view this can only mean one thing , that being vexatious is a proper process within the scope of the lawful proceedings of the DPP?

I do not consider being vexatious is within the scope of lawful proceedings, I assert that being vexatious is unlawful and outside the scope of lawful proceedings, so for this reason at this time I intend to Appeal. I believe that the DPP has an obligation to the public to not use their position and authority in such a way as to vexatiously inflict unecessary suffering on innocent people and/or to use the judicial process to protect and/or hide the actions of other government departments that fail in their responsibilities to the public.

In respect of our system of open justice the full Judgment has been made available online here (link below) on caselaw for those who are interested.

All You Need Is Love xxx PRB

Share this:


Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page