High Court justice denies leave to file writ of summons against Victoria courts

On or about 11 August 2025, the applicant wanted to file a writ of summons addressed to the following proposed defendants: the Victoria Police, Victoria’s public prosecutions director, Victoria’s attorney‑general, and the courts. 

The writ requested relief such as: 

• a formal written apology 
• expungement of all records, entries, and data regarding the applicant’s conviction 
• an order for the proposed defendants’ statutory declaration that the applicant was a malicious prosecution victim 
• a writ of certiorari quashing all associated judgments and orders arising from the allegedly void prosecution and conviction 
• a writ of mandamus compelling the proposed defendants’ lawful action 

The applicant alleged: 

• a fabricated and void charge 
• the state’s conspiracy against the applicant, amounting to a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution 
• entrapment 
• fabricated evidence against him 
• the police’s campaign of coercion 
• gender-based persecution 
• a total absence of actus reus and mens rea 
• a judicial breach of statutory safeguards 
• judicial fraud during the appellate processes 
• various, unparticularised violations of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), the Juries Act 2000 (Vic), the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) or the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and the Constitution 

On 14 August 2025, Steward J ordered the High Court registrar to refuse to issue or file the writ without a justice’s leave. 

On or about 15 September 2025, the applicant filed an ex parte application seeking leave to issue or file the writ dated 11 August 2025. 

Leave denied

Justice Robert Beech-Jones of the High Court of Australia dismissed the applicant’s ex parte application for leave to issue or file the writ of summons without an oral hearing. 

The High Court made the following findings: 

• The application and the writ were clearly confused and manifestly untenable 
• The writ and the applicant’s affidavits disclosed no rational legal basis for the requested relief 
• The writ apparently attempted to engage appellate processes and reagitate matters long resolved unfavourably to the applicant 

The High Court held that the writ included largely unparticularised assertions of wrongful conduct on the part of various persons or entities, some of whom were proposed defendants, and claimed breaches of laws and treaties without any rational explanation.