Letts v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 50; (1992) 109 ALR 317 (15 October 1992)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ARTHUR LETTS v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND ORS
F.C. 92/038

High Court of Australia
Mason C.J.(1), Brennan(1), Deane(1), Dawson(1) and Gaudron(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

HEARING

Canberra
15:10:1992

DECISION

MASON C.J., BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON AND GAUDRON JJ. This is an appeal against a decision of McHugh J. in which he dismissed an application by the appellant seeking relief against various respondents. The principal relief sought was:
"an Order Absolute directed to the Respondents named in
the Application for the Principal Registrar to accept and
issue according to the known laws of Australia for the
administration of Criminal Justice; of Mandamus: to the
Respondents to administer complete justice to the Applicant
and equality before the law in the dispute with the
Respondents denying the Applicant's human and legal rights.
And further for Orders that:
A. Attorney-Generals observe their duty to make Federal
and State Parliaments aware of the dispute to remedy
the Applicant's grievances against the assumption
of a pretended legislative and executive power to
dispense with and suspend the Constitution and laws
of Australia and the Common law;
B. That the exercise of jurisdiction by successive
governments representing different classes of people
over the extent of their delegated authority to
dispense with and suspend the basic principles of
democracy without the approval of a majority of
electors exceeds the legislative and executive power
and is invalid from the moment of its inception;
C. That the Respondents observe the human and legal right
of the Applicant to legal aid to prepare and be
represented before the High Court with a Jury to
resolve the dispute over the delegated legislative
and executive authority and its extent;
D. That the declarations, judgments, doings and
proceedings enforced against the Applicant are matters
justiciable are questions of law and fact mandatory
for removal to the original jurisdiction of the High
Court Jury."
against the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in relation to obtaining two pensions. Since that date amounts have been deducted from his pension to recover the moneys wrongly paid to him. It appears also that the appellant seeks to challenge his conviction in 1981 for those offences. Reference is also made to earlier convictions going back to 1956.

2. In his reasons for judgment, McHugh J. stated that the relationship between the grievances and the orders which were sought in the application was not readily apparent to him. The relationship between the grievances and the orders sought is no more apparent to us. Having considered what Mr Letts has put forward in writing and orally in support of his appeal, we are convinced that the decision of McHugh J. was clearly correct. None of the orders sought is an order that this Court could properly make.

3. The appeal must be dismissed.

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.