IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST No.

S APCI 2013 0028 BETWEEN Le Tuan PHAM Applicant(s) and

Attorney General (Victoria) First Defendant Department of Justice (Victoria) Second Defendant

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Date of document: Friday, 15 March 2013 Filed on behalf of: The Applicant Prepared by: Le Tuan PHAM Address: PO BOX 1255 St Albans 3021

Tel: 0412 871 985 Fax:

1. I am a Refugee; I arrived in Australia in 1989; 2. I am an Australian Citizen; 3. I feel offended and vilified that my sworn statements, affidavits and material evidence have NOT been taken in account, dismissed, without cause or reason. 4. It took Dixon almost 6 months to deliver his Order and Reasons; 5. Dixon J refused to consider the Affidavit on appeal from Lansdowne AJ; 6. On oral and written application, I submitted to Dixon J that a. I was NOT prosecuting the VCAT members but their employers; b. Judicial Immunity only covers if act are in good faith;

c. That it breached the Charter and was an abuse of the VCAT Act to breach the separation of executive from the judiciary under Australian constitution, inter alia; for the Principal Registrar of VCAT and Member A Dea to legal act for and provide legal arguments for the executive; d. It was Racial vilification; e. A breach of the Charter for Human rights and responsibility act; f. s24: competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing; g. Since Member A Dea acted for the respondents, I dont need to pay their legal costs; 7. This is an appeal against an Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria, and an application under ALA for relief or remedy in the nature of mandamus and or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria: a. An abuse of process, b. An abuse of position of public trust, c. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; d. And inciting racial hatred; e. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia;

2. The ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ACT 1978 states (emphasis added) 3. Tribunal decisions may be reviewed Any person affected by a decision of a tribunal may make application(hereinafter called an application for review) to the Supreme Court for an order calling on the tribunal or the members thereof (hereinafter called an order for review) and also any party interested in maintaining the decision to show cause why the same should not be reviewed.

11. As to who may seek prerogative writ declaration or injunction Any person affected by the decision of a tribunal or inferior court shall have sufficient standing to maintain proceedings for relief or remedy in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the decision but nothing in this section shall take away or impair any right to relief otherwise existing... 2

MANIFEST DISREGARD FOR LAWS AND EVIDENCE 3. I, Le Tuan Pham, accuse Dixon J of a. attempting to pervert the administration of justice by removing my documents, affidavits and b. An abuse of process, c. An abuse of position of public trust, d. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; e. And inciting racial hatred; f. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia;

4. I contend that there is Manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and an abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; 5. At no time did I differentiate types of discrimination; I mentioned to the Dixon J that the threshold was just indirect discrimination based either on race or disability. 6. The Dixon J failed to apply the correct test on Vilification; the point of view of the victim is what should be applied; 7. The Dixon J failed to provided competent directions for submitting written arguments; 8. The Dixon J apologised for the unlawful discrimination of the Respondents, by speaking for and presenting the Respondents arguments on their behalf; 9. And as such, we wont give permission for the Respondents to provide further submissions; 10. There is clear error of law: the Dixon J failed to consider relevant facts and evidence, and 11. The Dixon J totally disregarded the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act as well as the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006. 12. I was denied procedural fairness by the Greater Dandenong City Council and their employees, pursuant to the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility 2006, in particular s38 and s39; 13. The Dixon J refused to hear evidence on such abuses; 14. In the interest of the public, I seek, pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, this matter be referred to the Court of Appeals on a Question of Law, as follows: 15. In light of the Charter, and in particular s24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when

VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude, a. In manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and to abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; b. In order to deny procedural fairness, and or Natural Justice, in setting up the Refugees and Immigrants to fail, and then to call them inferior; c. To vilify Refugees and Immigrants, on their Engrish, or alleged bad English; as an Ignoratio elenchi or an informal fallacy to deny a fair hearing; without referring to the facts, evidence or documents; d. Even if the English is subpar, should lawful, legal and justice ideals and legislations be dependent on the language, rather than the understanding of such ideals; e. To apologise for acts of unlawful discrimination, by concocting facts and evidence; and or refusing to consider relevant facts and evidence; f. To make continuous errors of law, that are blatant, and thereby putting their positions into disrepute; g. To disregard of VCAT Service Charter and the Charter itself; h. To Attack Asian medical doctors and even the Australian Medical Association without cause or reason, as a means to unlawfully discriminate based on race via disability; i. j. And acting in blatant bad faith; And inciting Racial Hatred.

16. I, Le Tuan Pham, seek these orders and remedies:

a. That the Order(s) and Reasons of Dixon J be struck out for incompetence and a breach of Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; b. Remedy by way of Mandamus or Prohibition, on the Dixon J and the Prothonotary (Court of Appeal), and Coordinator for Self-Represented Litigants, Mr Shane Draper, not to attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by tampering with Court Documents or harass or intimidate litigants into changing documents, and thereby hijacking cases. c. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to vilify Aborigines and Refugees on false assumption of bad Engrish. d. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to incite racial hatred by failing to act conscionably as a Judicial Officer and thereby exposing his ethnic or racial background for ridicule and mockery.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST No. S APCI 2013 0028 BETWEEN Le Tuan PHAM Applicant(s) and

Attorney General (Victoria) First Defendant Department of Justice (Victoria) Second Defendant

NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER 1. Pursuant to JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 40 Removal by order of the High Court, we apply for an order under ss(1) to have this cause or part of a cause arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation be removed into the High Court under an order of the High Court; or ss2(a)(b) there is at any time pending in a court of a State a cause involving the exercise of federal jurisdiction by that court; for Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006; ss(3) Subject to the Constitution, jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or part of a cause ss4(b) the Court that it is appropriate to make the order having regard to all the circumstances, including the interests of the parties and the public interest; and Pursuant to the JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia, ss(1), writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought ss1A (b) arising under the Constitution, or involving its interpretation; or (c) arising under any laws made by the Parliament,

Pursuant to JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 38 Matters in which jurisdiction of High Court exclusive (a) matters arising directly under any treaty; (b) -(e)

2. Where the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (VIC) confers federal jurisdiction to the Court, The Applicant gives notice that this proceeding involves a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

Nature of constitutional matter 3. The constitutional issue raised by the Applicants application for removal of the cause or part of the cause to the High Court and or for referral to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, on a Question of Law is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria to make a bare declaration as to the privileges, powers and immunities of the administrative and or judicial arm of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court Victoria, and Inconsistent Interpretation of the Charter, pursuant to ss 36 and 39 of the Charter; 4. The determination of this issue may raise for consideration ss 98, 107, 108, 117, 118 of the Constitution.

Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act I903 (Cth) applies 1. The Applicant is a Refugee who came to Australia in 1979; 2. The Applicant is undergoing medical and pharmaceutical supervision on a cadiovascular and corneal disability; 3. Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), inter alia a. 139 Every judge in every trial, both criminal and civil, has an overriding duty to ensure the trial is fair. A fair trial is the only trial a judge can judicially conduct. The duty is inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights specified in the ICCPR. The proper performance of the duty to ensure a fair trial would also ensure those rights are promoted and respected. b. 140 Most self-represented persons lack two qualities that competent lawyers possess - legal skill and ability, and objectivity. Self-represented litigants therefore usually stand in a position of grave disadvantage in legal proceedings of all kinds. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by giving self-represented litigants due assistance. Doing so helps to

ensure the litigant is treated equally before the law and has equal access to justice. c. 141 The matters regarding which the judge must assist a self-represented litigant are not limited, for the judge must give such assistance as is necessary to ensure a fair trial. The proper scope of the assistance depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case. The touchstones are fairness and balance. The assistance may extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as to issues concerning the procedure that will be followed. The Family Court of Australia has enunciated useful guidelines on the performance of the duty. d. 142 The judge cannot become the advocate of the self-represented litigant, for the role of the judge is fundamentally different to that of an advocate. Further, the judge must maintain the reality and appearance of judicial neutrality at all times and to all parties, represented and selfrepresented. The assistance must be proportionate in the circumstances - it must ensure a fair trial, not afford an advantage to the self-represented litigant. e. 143 It remains to apply these principles to the present case.

THE JUDGE DID NOT PROPERLY PERFORM HIS DUTY TO ASSIST MR TOMASEVIC AS A SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT 4. Whereas Bell J reasoned, the Supreme Court of Victoria has considered the relevance and application of the human rights to equality before the law, access to justice and the right to a fair hearing under the ICCPR to the right to a fair trial under Victorian law and the obligations of the court to self-represented litigants, 5. The Applicant got this enlightened Reasoning From Garde J, who is also the President of VCAT: a. 8 (Discussion ensued) Pham vs Jones & Rachele SCI 2012 05038[2] b. 12 (Discussion ensued) Pham vs Drakoupos, City of Dandenong & Ors SCI 201205043[2] 6. Whereas there was NO written or oral submission of a response in SCI 2012 05038; No written or oral response at VCAT; 7. There was a new submission in response essentially filed 5pm, sent throught the email a day before the hearing in front of Mukhtar J, in SCI 201205043; No written or oral response at VCAT; 8. Where there were questions of law and seeking of an interpretation of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, but the Applicant, Garde J refused to answer;

9. The Applicant feels offended and vilified as a Refugee with bad Engrish, who made every attempt to comply with the laws and rules of the Court to be treated less than the Unrepresented litigant in front of Bell J; Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007) 10. Whereas the Applicant made his facts and material evidence, they were ignored by the Judges; 11. Whereas the Applicant seek an interpretation of the laws and legal precedence, or questions of law, it was refused; 12. Whether or not Bell J is the same as the present one presiding on the High Court Australia, the Applicant seek to remove this cause into the High Court for an interpretation of the Charter relating to Equality before the Law for Immigrants and Refugees, inter alia.

VCATS NATURAL JUSTICE OBLIGATIONS By Justice Emilios Kyrou, Supreme Court of Victoria Paper delivered at the VCAT on 23 June 2010 Breach of the rules of natural justice as an appealable error of law 36. Section 148(1) of the VCAT Act provides that a party to a proceeding before the VCAT may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law from an order of the VCAT. 37. the prevalent view is that a breach of the rules of natural justice by the VCAT involves a question of law for the purposes of s 148(1) of the VCAT Act. 38. Where the Supreme Court finds that the VCAT has breached one of the rules of natural justice, it will usually set aside the VCATs order and remit the proceeding to the VCAT for re-hearing. 13. Whereas Kyrou J presented his paper to VCAT, none of the President, Deputy Presidents including I Lulham, Senior /Member Wentworth, Cremean, inter alia, followed his advice;

14. Whereas Kyrou J presented his paper to VCAT, The Court of Appeal comprising Nettle JA and Kyrou AJA, proceeded with an unchallenged case where the Respondent indicated he couldnt be bothered to turn up at VCAT; Pham vs Nguyen S APCI 2011 0190; 15. The Applicant feels offended and vilified as a Refugee with bad Engrish, who made every attempt to comply with the laws and rules of the Court to be treated less than

the Unrepresented litigant in front of Bell J; Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007) 16. Whereas the Applicant made his facts and material evidence, they were ignored by the Judges; 17. Whereas the Applicant seek an interpretation of the laws and legal precedence, or questions of law, it was refused; 18. Whether or not Bell J is the same as the present one presiding on the High Court Australia, the Applicant seek to remove this cause into the High Court for an interpretation of the Charter relating to Equality before the Law for Immigrants and Refugees, inter alia. 19. On the 30th of November 2012, the Applicant attempted to file his two appeal(s) in the Supreme Court Victoria, on appeal from VCAT. 20. The Deputy Prothonotary Aurora Clark, refused to file the Originating Motions; and sought advice from the Prothonotary, citing SUPREME COURT RULES - REG 27.06 Proper officer refusing to seal or accept document. 21. Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2008, indicates that the Applicant has 7 days to file the following, a. 4.07 b. 4.08 Affidavit in support Summons before Associate Judge

22. When the Applicant asked her for her reasons why the Applicant was denied the usual process, the Deputy Prothonotary refused to answer. 23. The Deputy Prothonotary told the Applicant that she was seeking an order from the single Judge, and on that same day, an Unkown Judge make order to decline the filing of the documents. 24. An Order from the Judge Pagone, dated 4th of November 2012, was delivered some 2 weeks later. 25. NO reason was given for the Order of Pagone J; 26. The Applicant feels offended and vilified that the same procedure on Appeal from an Order of VCAT was denied him, without proper reasons. 27. On the 5th November 2012, the Applicant was forced under duress to change the named Respondents in his Summons without his consent by Mr Konstantin Rotarou, Registry Officer, Court of Appeal; 28. and thereby prejudicing the timing and the running of his case. 29. The Applicant is a Refugee; arriving in Australia in 1989;

30. The Applicant is an Australian Citizen; 31. The Applicant feels offended and vilified that my sworn statements, affidavits and material evidence have NOT been taken in account, dismissed, without cause or reason. 32. It took Dixon almost 6 months to deliver his Order and Reasons; 33. Dixon J refused to consider the Affidavit on appeal from Lansdowne AJ; 34. On oral and written application, I submitted to Dixon J that 35. The Applicant was NOT prosecuting the VCAT members but their employers; 36. Judicial Immunity only covers if act are in good faith; 37. That it breached the Charter and was an abuse of the VCAT Act to breach the separation of executive from the judiciary under Australian constitution, inter alia; for the Principal Registrar of VCAT and Member A Dea to legal act for and provide legal arguments for the executive; 38. It was Racial vilification; 39. A breach of the Charter for Human rights and responsibility act; 40. s24: competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing; 41. Since Member A Dea acted for the respondents, I dont need to pay their legal costs; 42. This is an appeal against an Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria, and an application under ALA for relief or remedy in the nature of mandamus and or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria: a. An abuse of process, b. An abuse of position of public trust, c. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; d. And inciting racial hatred; e. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; 43. The ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ACT 1978 states (emphasis added) 3. Tribunal decisions may be reviewed Any person affected by a decision of a tribunal may make application(hereinafter called an application for review) to the Supreme Court for an order calling on the tribunal or the members thereof (hereinafter called an order for review) and also any party interested in maintaining the decision to show cause why the same should not be reviewed. 44. As to who may seek prerogative writ declaration or injunction Any person affected by the decision of a tribunal or inferior court shall have sufficient standing to maintain proceedings for relief or remedy in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the decision but nothing in this section shall take away or impair any right to relief otherwise existing...

MANIFEST DISREGARD FOR LAWS AND EVIDENCE 45. The Applicant, accuses Dixon J of a. attempting to pervert the administration of justice by removing my documents, affidavits and b. An abuse of process, c. An abuse of position of public trust, d. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; e. And inciting racial hatred; f. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; 46. The Applicant contends that there is Manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and an abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; 47. At no time did The Applicant differentiate types of discrimination; I mentioned to the Dixon J that the threshold was just indirect discrimination based either on race or disability. 48. The Dixon J failed to apply the correct test on Vilification; the point of view of the victim is what should be applied; 49. The Dixon J failed to provided competent directions for submitting written arguments; 50. The Dixon J apologised for the unlawful discrimination of the Respondents, by speaking for and presenting the Respondents arguments on their behalf; 51. And as such, we wont give permission for the Respondents to provide further submissions; 52. There is clear error of law: the Dixon J failed to consider relevant facts and evidence, and 53. The Dixon J totally disregarded the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act as well as the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006. 54. The Applicant was denied procedural fairness by the Greater Dandenong City Council and their employees, pursuant to the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility 2006, in particular s38 and s39; 55. The Dixon J refused to hear evidence on such abuses; 56. In the interest of the public, I seek, pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, this matter be referred to the Court of Appeals on a Question of Law, as follows: 57. In light of the Charter, and in particular s24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude, a. In manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and to abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; b. In order to deny procedural fairness, and or Natural Justice, in setting up the Refugees and Immigrants to fail, and then to call them inferior; c. To vilify Refugees and Immigrants, on their Engrish, or alleged bad English; as an Ignoratio elenchi or an informal fallacy to deny a fair hearing; without referring to the facts, evidence or documents;

d. Even if the English is subpar, should lawful, legal and justice ideals and legislations be dependent on the language, rather than the understanding of such ideals; e. To apologise for acts of unlawful discrimination, by concocting facts and evidence; and or refusing to consider relevant facts and evidence; f. To make continuous errors of law, that are blatant, and thereby putting their positions into disrepute; g. To disregard of VCAT Service Charter and the Charter itself; h. To Attack Asian medical doctors and even the Australian Medical Association without cause or reason, as a means to unlawfully discriminate based on race via disability; i. And acting in blatant bad faith; j. And inciting Racial Hatred. 58. The Applicant, seeks these orders and remedies: a. That the Order(s) and Reasons of Dixon J be struck out for incompetence and a breach of Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; b. Remedy by way of Mandamus or Prohibition, on the Dixon J and the Prothonotary (Court of Appeal), and Coordinator for Self-Represented Litigants, Mr Shane Draper, not to attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by tampering with Court Documents or harass or intimidate litigants into changing documents, and thereby hijacking cases. c. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to vilify Aborigines and Refugees on false assumption of bad Engrish. d. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to incite racial hatred by failing to act conscionably as a Judicial Officer and thereby exposing his ethnic or racial background for ridicule and mockery.

Dated: Friday, 15 March 2013

[Signed]LT Pham

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST No. S APCI 2013 0028 BETWEEN Le Tuan PHAM Applicant(s) and

Attorney General (Victoria) First Defendant Department of Justice (Victoria) Second Defendant

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 35 NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL/THE VICTORIAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

1. [Le Tuan Pham] gives notice that Out of Respect for the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, in its capacity to carry out Justice under the Rule of law, *in the cases of [Court of Appeal File Nos: S APCI 2012 0211, 0212,0213 and 0214]; *in the cases of [Supreme Court File Nos: SCI 2013 00092, 00093 ]; *a question of law arises that relates to the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities; *a question arises with respect to the interpretation of a statutory provision in accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities; *in the case of [Court of Appeal File Nos: S APCI 2012 0211, 0212,0213 and 0214] a question has been referred to the Supreme Court under section 33 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities being [ Court of Appeal/Trial Division] Proceeding No. [insert].

2. [State specifically 1. (a) In light of the Charter, and in particular s24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude, a. In manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and to abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; b. In order to deny procedural fairness, and or Natural Justice, in setting up the Refugees and Immigrants to fail, and then to call them inferior; c. To vilify Refugees and Immigrants, on their Engrish, or alleged bad English; as an Ignoratio elenchi or an informal fallacy to deny a fair hearing; without referring to the facts, evidence or documents; d. Even if the English is subpar, should lawful, legal and justice ideals and legislations be dependent on the language, rather than the understanding of such ideals; e. To apologise for acts of unlawful discrimination, by concocting facts and evidence; and or refusing to consider relevant facts and evidence; f. To make continuous errors of law, that are blatant, and thereby putting their positions into disrepute; g. To disregard of VCAT Service Charter and the Charter itself; h. To Attack Asian medical doctors and even the Australian Medical Association without cause or reason, as a means to unlawfully discriminate based on race via disability; i. j. And acting in blatant bad faith; And inciting Racial Hatred.

k. A conspiracy by the Supreme Court of Victoria, Prothonotary of the Supreme Court and the Registrar of Court of Appeal to hijack the Charter; by failing to answer questions and interpretation of the Charter; inter alia l. In an attempt to vilify and discriminate, both race and disability;

m. In order to pervert and obstruct the administration of justice, and the rule of law; n. Conspiracy to cause injury, interfere with privacy and employment, inter alia.

3. [State the facts showing the matter is one to which a. Question of law and interpretation of the Charter as asked of the Supreme Court of Victoria, pursuant to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006; b. None have been answered or refered to the Court of Appeals; c. Feigning ineptitude on the part of the Supreme Court Victoria is not acceptable for the judges to engage in unlawful discrimination, race and disability; d. In obstruction of the administration of justice, the rules of natural justice and the Rule of Law; e. Garde J vilified Mr Pham by indicating that the Commission, did not intervene in the earlier related matter; f. We do not give the Commission the consent to act for us, its the obligation for the Commission to act in defence of the Charter;

g. We are now in the Court of Appeals and we expect the Court of Appeals to answer the question of law and interpretation of the Charter to be answered; h. Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. i. In light of the Charter, and in particular s24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude to obstruct the administration of justice and common law rules of natural justice, inter alia.

Nature of constitutional matter 1. The constitutional issue raised by the Applicants application for removal of the cause or part of the cause to the High Court and or for referral to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, on a Question of Law is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria to make a bare declaration as to the privileges, powers and immunities of the administrative and or judicial arm of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court

Victoria, and Inconsistent Interpretation of the Charter, pursuant to ss 36 and 39 of the Charter; 2. The determination of this issue may raise for consideration ss 98, 107, 108, 117, 118 of the Constitution.

Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act I903 (Cth) applies 1. The Applicant is a Refugee who came to Australia in 1979; 2. The Applicant is undergoing medical and pharmaceutical supervision on a cadiovascular and corneal disability; 3. Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), inter alia a. 139 Every judge in every trial, both criminal and civil, has an overriding duty to ensure the trial is fair. A fair trial is the only trial a judge can judicially conduct. The duty is inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights specified in the ICCPR. The proper performance of the duty to ensure a fair trial would also ensure those rights are promoted and respected. b. 140 Most self-represented persons lack two qualities that competent lawyers possess - legal skill and ability, and objectivity. Self-represented litigants therefore usually stand in a position of grave disadvantage in legal proceedings of all kinds. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by giving self-represented litigants due assistance. Doing so helps to ensure the litigant is treated equally before the law and has equal access to justice. c. 141 The matters regarding which the judge must assist a self-represented litigant are not limited, for the judge must give such assistance as is necessary to ensure a fair trial. The proper scope of the assistance depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case. The touchstones are fairness and balance. The assistance may extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as to issues concerning the procedure that will be followed. The Family Court of Australia has enunciated useful guidelines on the performance of the duty. d. 142 The judge cannot become the advocate of the self-represented litigant, for the role of the judge is fundamentally different to that of an advocate. Further, the judge must maintain the reality and appearance of judicial neutrality at all times and to all parties, represented and selfrepresented. The assistance must be proportionate in the circumstances - it must ensure a fair trial, not afford an advantage to the self-represented litigant. e. 143 It remains to apply these principles to the present case.

THE JUDGE DID NOT PROPERLY PERFORM HIS DUTY TO ASSIST MR TOMASEVIC AS A SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT 4. Whereas Bell J reasoned, the Supreme Court of Victoria has considered the relevance and application of the human rights to equality before the law, access to justice and the right to a fair hearing under the ICCPR to the right to a fair trial under Victorian law and the obligations of the court to self-represented litigants, 5. The Applicant got this enlightened Reasoning From Garde J, who is also the President of VCAT: a. 8 (Discussion ensued) Pham vs Jones & Rachele SCI 2012 05038[2] b. 12 (Discussion ensued) Pham vs Drakoupos, City of Dandenong & Ors SCI 201205043[2] 6. Whereas there was NO written or oral submission of a response in SCI 2012 05038; No written or oral response at VCAT; 7. There was a new submission in response essentially filed 5pm, sent throught the email a day before the hearing in front of Mukhtar J, in SCI 201205043; No written or oral response at VCAT; 8. Where there were questions of law and seeking of an interpretation of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, but the Applicant, Garde J refused to answer; 9. The Applicant feels offended and vilified as a Refugee with bad Engrish, who made every attempt to comply with the laws and rules of the Court to be treated less than the Unrepresented litigant in front of Bell J; Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007) 10. Whereas the Applicant made his facts and material evidence, they were ignored by the Judges; 11. Whereas the Applicant seek an interpretation of the laws and legal precedence, or questions of law, it was refused; 12. Whether or not Bell J is the same as the present one presiding on the High Court Australia, the Applicant seek to remove this cause into the High Court for an interpretation of the Charter relating to Equality before the Law for Immigrants and Refugees, inter alia.

VCATS NATURAL JUSTICE OBLIGATIONS By Justice Emilios Kyrou, Supreme Court of Victoria Paper delivered at the VCAT on 23 June 2010 Breach of the rules of natural justice as an appealable error of law 36. Section 148(1) of the VCAT Act provides that a party to a proceeding before the VCAT may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law from an order of the VCAT. 37. the prevalent view is that a breach of the rules of natural justice by the VCAT involves a question of law for the purposes of s 148(1) of the VCAT Act. 38. Where the Supreme Court finds that the VCAT has breached one of the rules of natural justice, it will usually set aside the VCATs order and remit the proceeding to the VCAT for re-hearing. 13. Whereas Kyrou J presented his paper to VCAT, none of the President, Deputy Presidents including I Lulham, Senior /Member Wentworth, Cremean, inter alia, followed his advice;

14. Whereas Kyrou J presented his paper to VCAT, The Court of Appeal comprising Nettle JA and Kyrou AJA, proceeded with an unchallenged case where the Respondent indicated he couldnt be bothered to turn up at VCAT; Pham vs Nguyen S APCI 2011 0190; 15. The Applicant feels offended and vilified as a Refugee with bad Engrish, who made every attempt to comply with the laws and rules of the Court to be treated less than the Unrepresented litigant in front of Bell J; Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007) 16. Whereas the Applicant made his facts and material evidence, they were ignored by the Judges; 17. Whereas the Applicant seek an interpretation of the laws and legal precedence, or questions of law, it was refused; 18. Whether or not Bell J is the same as the present one presiding on the High Court Australia, the Applicant seek to remove this cause into the High Court for an interpretation of the Charter relating to Equality before the Law for Immigrants and Refugees, inter alia.

19. On the 30th of November 2012, the Applicant attempted to file his two appeal(s) in the Supreme Court Victoria, on appeal from VCAT. 20. The Deputy Prothonotary Aurora Clark, refused to file the Originating Motions; and sought advice from the Prothonotary, citing SUPREME COURT RULES - REG 27.06 Proper officer refusing to seal or accept document. 21. Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2008, indicates that the Applicant has 7 days to file the following, a. 4.07 b. 4.08 Affidavit in support Summons before Associate Judge

22. When the Applicant asked her for her reasons why the Applicant was denied the usual process, the Deputy Prothonotary refused to answer. 23. The Deputy Prothonotary told the Applicant that she was seeking an order from the single Judge, and on that same day, an Unkown Judge make order to decline the filing of the documents. 24. An Order from the Judge Pagone, dated 4th of November 2012, was delivered some 2 weeks later. 25. NO reason was given for the Order of Pagone J; 26. The Applicant feels offended and vilified that the same procedure on Appeal from an Order of VCAT was denied him, without proper reasons. 27. On the 5th November 2012, the Applicant was forced under duress to change the named Respondents in his Summons without his consent by Mr Konstantin Rotarou, Registry Officer, Court of Appeal; 28. and thereby prejudicing the timing and the running of his case. 29. The Applicant is an Australian Citizen; 30. The Applicant feels offended and vilified that my sworn statements, affidavits and material evidence have NOT been taken in account, dismissed, without cause or reason. 31. It took Dixon almost 6 months to deliver his Order and Reasons; 32. Dixon J refused to consider the Affidavit on appeal from Lansdowne AJ; 33. On oral and written application, I submitted to Dixon J that 34. The Applicant was NOT prosecuting the VCAT members but their employers; 35. Judicial Immunity only covers if act are in good faith; 36. That it breached the Charter and was an abuse of the VCAT Act to breach the separation of executive from the judiciary under Australian constitution, inter alia; for the Principal Registrar of VCAT and Member A Dea to legal act for and provide legal arguments for the executive; 37. It was Racial vilification; 38. A breach of the Charter for Human rights and responsibility act;

39. s24: competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing; 40. Since Member A Dea acted for the respondents, I dont need to pay their legal costs; 41. This is an appeal against an Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria, and an application under ALA for relief or remedy in the nature of mandamus and or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria: a. An abuse of process, b. An abuse of position of public trust, c. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; d. And inciting racial hatred; e. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; 42. The ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ACT 1978 states (emphasis added) 3. Tribunal decisions may be reviewed Any person affected by a decision of a tribunal may make application(hereinafter called an application for review) to the Supreme Court for an order calling on the tribunal or the members thereof (hereinafter called an order for review) and also any party interested in maintaining the decision to show cause why the same should not be reviewed. 43. As to who may seek prerogative writ declaration or injunction Any person affected by the decision of a tribunal or inferior court shall have sufficient standing to maintain proceedings for relief or remedy in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the decision but nothing in this section shall take away or impair any right to relief otherwise existing...

MANIFEST DISREGARD FOR LAWS AND EVIDENCE 44. The Applicant, accuses Dixon J of f. attempting to pervert the administration of justice by removing my documents, affidavits and g. An abuse of process, h. An abuse of position of public trust, i. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; j. And inciting racial hatred; k. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; 45. The Applicant contends that there is Manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and an abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; 46. At no time did The Applicant differentiate types of discrimination; I mentioned to the Dixon J that the threshold was just indirect discrimination based either on race or disability. 47. The Dixon J failed to apply the correct test on Vilification; the point of view of the victim is what should be applied; 48. The Dixon J failed to provided competent directions for submitting written arguments; 49. The Dixon J apologised for the unlawful discrimination of the Respondents, by speaking for and presenting the Respondents arguments on their behalf; 50. And as such, we wont give permission for the Respondents to provide further submissions; 51. There is clear error of law: the Dixon J failed to consider relevant facts and evidence, and 52. The Dixon J totally disregarded the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act as well as the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006. 53. The Applicant was denied procedural fairness by the Greater Dandenong City Council and their employees, pursuant to the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility 2006, in particular s38 and s39; 54. The Dixon J refused to hear evidence on such abuses; 55. In the interest of the public, I seek, pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, this matter be referred to the Court of Appeals on a Question of Law, as follows: 56. In light of the Charter, and in particular s24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude, l. In manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and to abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; m. In order to deny procedural fairness, and or Natural Justice, in setting up the Refugees and Immigrants to fail, and then to call them inferior; n. To vilify Refugees and Immigrants, on their Engrish, or alleged bad English; as an Ignoratio elenchi or an informal fallacy to deny a fair hearing; without referring to the facts, evidence or documents;

o. Even if the English is subpar, should lawful, legal and justice ideals and legislations be dependent on the language, rather than the understanding of such ideals; p. To apologise for acts of unlawful discrimination, by concocting facts and evidence; and or refusing to consider relevant facts and evidence; q. To make continuous errors of law, that are blatant, and thereby putting their positions into disrepute; r. To disregard of VCAT Service Charter and the Charter itself; s. To Attack Asian medical doctors and even the Australian Medical Association without cause or reason, as a means to unlawfully discriminate based on race via disability; t. And acting in blatant bad faith; u. And inciting Racial Hatred. 57. The Applicant, seeks these orders and remedies: v. That the Order(s) and Reasons of Dixon J be struck out for incompetence and a breach of Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; w. Remedy by way of Mandamus or Prohibition, on the Dixon J and the Prothonotary (Court of Appeal), and Coordinator for Self-Represented Litigants, Mr Shane Draper, not to attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by tampering with Court Documents or harass or intimidate litigants into changing documents, and thereby hijacking cases. x. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to vilify Aborigines and Refugees on false assumption of bad Engrish. y. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to incite racial hatred by failing to act conscionably as a Judicial Officer and thereby exposing his ethnic or racial background for ridicule and mockery. 4. [State the relevant directions, if any, made by the Court in relation to the proceeding and provide details of the next directions/hearing date.]

Dated: Friday, 15 March 2013 [Signed]LT Pham To the: [Attorney-General/Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission*] And to the: [Prothonotary of the Supreme Court/Registrar of the Court of Appeal] And to: [insert details of other party/parties] DixonJ, Lansdowne AJ, inter alia Prothonotary Supreme Court Victoria, Deputy Prothonotary Aurora Clark Judicial Registrar Court of Appeals, Mark Pedley, Konstantin Rotarou Inter alia *[delete as appropriate]

10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST No. S APCI 2013 0028 BETWEEN Le Tuan PHAM Applicant(s) and

Attorney General (Victoria) First Defendant Department of Justice (Victoria) Second Defendant

OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION
Date of document: Friday, 15 March 2013 Filed on behalf of: The Applicant Prepared by: Le Tuan PHAM Address: PO BOX 1255 St Albans 3021

Tel: 0412 871 985 Fax:

1. I am a Refugee; I arrived in Australia in 1989; 2. I am an Australian Citizen; 3. I feel offended and vilified that my sworn statements, affidavits and material evidence have NOT been taken in account, dismissed, without cause or reason. 4. It took Dixon almost 6 months to deliver his Order and Reasons; 5. Dixon J refused to consider the Affidavit on appeal from Lansdowne AJ; 6. On oral and written application, I submitted to Dixon J that a. I was NOT prosecuting the VCAT members but their employers; b. Judicial Immunity only covers if act are in good faith;

c. That it breached the Charter and was an abuse of the VCAT Act to breach the separation of executive from the judiciary under Australian constitution, inter alia; for the Principal Registrar of VCAT and Member A Dea to legal act for and provide legal arguments for the executive; d. It was Racial vilification; e. A breach of the Charter for Human rights and responsibility act; f. s24: competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing; g. Since Member A Dea acted for the respondents, I dont need to pay their legal costs; 7. This is an appeal against an Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria, and an application under ALA for relief or remedy in the nature of mandamus and or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the Order made by Dixon J on the 19 February 2013, in the Supreme Court Victoria: a. An abuse of process, b. An abuse of position of public trust, c. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; d. And inciting racial hatred; e. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia;

2. The ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ACT 1978 states (emphasis added) 3. Tribunal decisions may be reviewed Any person affected by a decision of a tribunal may make application(hereinafter called an application for review) to the Supreme Court for an order calling on the tribunal or the members thereof (hereinafter called an order for review) and also any party interested in maintaining the decision to show cause why the same should not be reviewed.

11. As to who may seek prerogative writ declaration or injunction Any person affected by the decision of a tribunal or inferior court shall have sufficient standing to maintain proceedings for relief or remedy in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the decision but nothing in this section shall take away or impair any right to relief otherwise existing... 2

MANIFEST DISREGARD FOR LAWS AND EVIDENCE 3. I, Le Tuan Pham, accuse Dixon J of a. attempting to pervert the administration of justice by removing my documents, affidavits and b. An abuse of process, c. An abuse of position of public trust, d. In order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; e. And inciting racial hatred; f. As breaches of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia;

4. I contend that there is Manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and an abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; 5. At no time did I differentiate types of discrimination; I mentioned to the Dixon J that the threshold was just indirect discrimination based either on race or disability. 6. The Dixon J failed to apply the correct test on Vilification; the point of view of the victim is what should be applied; 7. The Dixon J failed to provided competent directions for submitting written arguments; 8. The Dixon J apologised for the unlawful discrimination of the Respondents, by speaking for and presenting the Respondents arguments on their behalf; 9. And as such, we wont give permission for the Respondents to provide further submissions; 10. There is clear error of law: the Dixon J failed to consider relevant facts and evidence, and 11. The Dixon J totally disregarded the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act as well as the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006. 12. I was denied procedural fairness by the Greater Dandenong City Council and their employees, pursuant to the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility 2006, in particular s38 and s39; 13. The Dixon J refused to hear evidence on such abuses; 14. In the interest of the public, I seek, pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, this matter be referred to the Court of Appeals on a Question of Law, as follows: 15. In light of the Charter, and in particular s24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when

VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude, a. In manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and to abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; b. In order to deny procedural fairness, and or Natural Justice, in setting up the Refugees and Immigrants to fail, and then to call them inferior; c. To vilify Refugees and Immigrants, on their Engrish, or alleged bad English; as an Ignoratio elenchi or an informal fallacy to deny a fair hearing; without referring to the facts, evidence or documents; d. Even if the English is subpar, should lawful, legal and justice ideals and legislations be dependent on the language, rather than the understanding of such ideals; e. To apologise for acts of unlawful discrimination, by concocting facts and evidence; and or refusing to consider relevant facts and evidence; f. To make continuous errors of law, that are blatant, and thereby putting their positions into disrepute; g. To disregard of VCAT Service Charter and the Charter itself; h. To Attack Asian medical doctors and even the Australian Medical Association without cause or reason, as a means to unlawfully discriminate based on race via disability; i. j. And acting in blatant bad faith; And inciting Racial Hatred.

16. Total Abuse of the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006: a. That the Order(s) and Reasons of Dixon J be struck out for incompetence and a breach of Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 s8, s24(1), inter alia; b. Remedy by way of Mandamus or Prohibition, on the Dixon J and the Prothonotary (Court of Appeal), and Coordinator for Self-Represented Litigants, Mr Shane Draper, not to attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by tampering with Court Documents or harass or intimidate litigants into changing documents, and thereby hijacking cases. c. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to vilify Aborigines and Refugees on false assumption of bad Engrish. d. Remedy by way of Prohibition on the Dixon J not to incite racial hatred by failing to act conscionably as a Judicial Officer and thereby exposing his ethnic or racial background for ridicule and mockery.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL No. AP CI 2013 0028 BETWEEN LE TUAN PHAM Appellant -ANDDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE VICTORIA -ANDATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA Respondents

RESPONDENTS OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS Date of Document: 25 March 2013 Filed on behalf of: the Attorney-General Prepared by: Victorian Government Solicitors Office Level 25 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Solicitors Code: 7977 Telephone: +61 3 8684 0425 Facsimile: +61 3 8684 0449 DX 300077 Melbourne Ref: 1243260 Attention: Bruce Chen/Lucy Maxwell

Background 1. 2. This is an appeal from the decision of Dixon J on 19 February 2013. The background to this matter is set out in the decision of Dixon J on 19 February 2013 in paragraphs 1 to 8 and in so far as it related to the hearing before the Practice Court, at paragraphs 9 to 28. 3. To summarise: a. the Appellant appears to be aggrieved in relation to the manner in which VCAT handled a claim he had lodged (the 'original VCAT proceeding').

b. The Appellant then attempted to lodge, in VCAT, a claim of discrimination in respect of the handling of the original VCAT proceeding (the 'discrimination claim against VCAT').1 c. The discrimination claim against VCAT was rejected by the principal registrar under s 71 of the VCAT Act on the basis that VCAT lacked jurisdiction.2 d. The Appellant applied to VCAT to review the decision of the judicial registrar but the application was rejected by Member Dea on 13 June 2012, with reasons. 3 e. The Appellant then filed an originating motion and summons, supported by an affidavit, in the Supreme Court, naming the Department of Justice and Attorney-General as respondents (the 'Supreme Court proceeding'). f. On 27 August 2012 the Associate Judge dismissed the proceeding. The reasons are recorded in 'other matters' in the order and are set out in paragraph 19 of the judgment of Dixon J. g. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal against the orders of the Associate Judge and, following a rehearing de novo, on 19 February 2013 Dixon J also dismissed the proceeding. Judgment appealed from 4. The exact nature of the Supreme Court proceeding was, and remains, unclear. However, both the Associate Judge and Dixon J gave careful consideration to whether there was any possible tenable claim against the Respondents. Each concluded there was not. Dixon J ultimately concluded that the jurisdiction of

1 2 3

Judgment at para 3. Judgment at paras 4-5. Judgment at paras 6-8.

the Supreme Court had not been enlivened in this proceeding. 4 particularly, he held that:

More

a. If the Appellant was aggrieved by the conduct of members of VCAT in the original VCAT proceeding, his remedy was to seek leave to appeal from their decisions pursuant to s 148 of the VCAT Act.5 b. The Respondents are not liable for actions of members of VCAT and there is no entitlement to relief against them. 6 c. The application under s 3 of the Administrative Law Act was also misconceived.7 5. The Appellant now appeals against the orders of Dixon J.

Grounds of Appeal 6. The grounds of appeal relied upon are stated as: a. an abuse of process, b. an abuse of position of public trust; c. in order to vilify Aborigines and Refugees; d. And (sic) inciting racial hatred, Submissions 7. The Respondents submit that his honour was correct in finding that the jurisdiction of the Court was not enlivened. The grounds of appeal do not identify any error of law in this regard. 8. Insofar as the grounds of appeal might be regarded as identifying an error of law in relation to the way in which Dixon J conducted the proceeding, there is no evidence to substantiate the claims and they should be rejected. Orders
4 5 6 7

Judgment at para 32. Judgment at paras 30 and 33. Judgment at para 32. Judgment at para 33.

9. 10.

The Respondents submit that the Appellant's appeal ought to be dismissed. The Appellant should pay the Respondents' costs of the appeal.

Naomi Hodgson Counsel for the Respondents