Monday, May 22, 2006

The High Court Contravenes the Constitution and Abuses Its Power

The High Court’s reasons of the orders made on 10 May were not available until 19 May., download:The Senior Registrar's letter 10/05/06)

In the reasons the common ground and the key argument that Hilda complained about that her superior coerced her to cook the book was not mentioned. The fact that she was terminated on 16/12/03 was not challenged by her employer but was changed to 12/12/03. The reason did not mention that Hilda’s claims filed to the Federal Court was certified by the Industrial Relations Commission and was dismissed by the Federal Court without a trial.

The reasons did not mention that was the employer’s obligation to prove “the termination was for a reason or reasons that do not include a proscribed reason”, which was agreed with by the employer’s counsel, under s 170CQ of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

The reasons did not mention the crucial fact that the employer accepted that Hilda was sacked because she had complained about that her superior coerced her to falsify accounting records and reports, which was one of the premises for striking out Hilda’s claim of unlawful termination, was one of the grounds of appeals and one of the Constitutional matters raised in Hilda’s notices to the Attorneys.

The reasons did not mention any particular appeal grounds to the Full Federal court and to the High Court, and did not mention what were the Constitutional matters raised by Hilda in her notices to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth, States and Territories.

The reasons did not outline any crucial facts and grounds but the Courts' subjective opinions. It is a good example of denials of natural justice (ignoring both relevant facts and arguable grounds). The reasons show how injustice could be done and how the High Court upholding injustice other than upholding peoples’ fundamental rights under the Constitution. That is why grassroots people know that the legal system is unjust.

The High Court did not doubt that Hilda could win her appeals if special leaves to appeal were granted and did not doubt that Constitutional matters were raised in Hilda’s notices to the Attorneys. However, the High Court held to the effect that the people’s fundamental Constitutional rights is nothing ( not “sufficient to justify a grant of special leave to appeal”) comparing with both of the employers’ rights to cook the book and the judges’ rights to cook both the transcript and judgments, even though we informed the High Court on 5 May that 600 people had supported the petitions regarding to the people’s fundamental Constitutional rights arouse from Hilda’s case (download: Letter to Senior Registrar 05/05/06). That is why the grassroots people know that the legal system works for the rich and not for the poor.

After the High Court informed all Attornys-General that Hilda’s applications had been dismissed, the Attorney of NSW still thought that Hilda’s applications should be granted (download: letter of State Solicitor of NSW 15/05/06), even through he did not indicate a desire to challege the orders made by the High Court. The Attorney of ACT seems to hold a similar opinion (download: letter of Principal Solicitor of ACT 15/05/06).

The Attorneys-General of QLD and WA seemed holding that Hilda’s application should be granted if the High Court functioned properly (download:letter of Crown Solicitor of QLD 05/05/06 and letter of State Solicitor of WA 09/05/06). By 22 May the Attorneys-General of SA and VIC had not responded to Hilda’s ‘Notice of A Constitutional Matter’, it seems to them that “[a] reasonable time has [not] elapsed since the s 78B notices were given.”

The High Court held that “No Attorney-General has indicated a desire to intervene”. On 5 May I faxed and posted to the senior registrar of the High Court a letter, and attached a letter wrote by a lawyer acted for the Federal Attorney. I quoted the lawyer’s statement: “If special leave to appeal is granted, the Attorney-General might decide to intervene in the appeal” (download: letter of a lawyer from Australian Government Solicitor 28/04/06). Apparently it indicated the Attorney’s desire to intervene in the appeal and showed that the Attorney had reasonably expected the special leave to be granted.

The High Court excused itself from holding that the people’s fundamental Constitutional rights were not important because it believed that the Attorneys thought they were not important (‘no Attorneys-General has indicate a desire to intervene’). So far the Attorneys of NT and TAS have affirmed that they had no “desires to intervene” after they knew the High Court’s decisions (download: both letter and envelope of Solicitor-General of NT mailed 11/05/06, letter of Solicitor-General of TAS 17/05/06). We will try to obtain affirmations from other Attorneys.

The Attorneys might excuse themselves from holding that the peoples’ fundamental Constitutional rights were not important because they might assume that the people’s representatives (members of parliaments) thought they were not important.

Therefore we will continue our campaign of petitions to obtain evidences for the MPs that the people believe that the their fundamental Constitutional rights are important and that the Courts and Attorneys should not breach their ultimate duties of upholding the people’s fundamental Constitutional rights.

Because the High Court dismissed Hilda’s applications of special leave to appeal, the petitions will be changed accordingly from “......intervenes the matter in the High Court under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903” to “......intervenes the matter in the High Court under section 77J(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903”.

(files below are downloadable as .doc files)

Nature of the petitions after High Court's reasons 19/05/06
Petition to the Commonwealth Senate after 19/05/06
Petition to the Victorian Parliament after 19/05/06
Hilda’s written case of M76, M77, M129 and M130 of 2005