| hide details 1:05 PM (0 minutes ago) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Attorney General of Western Australia
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
The Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia
The Parliamentary Inspector of the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia
The Assistant Parliamentary Inspector of the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Executive Officer
State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia
12, St. Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000 Ph: (08) 9219 3111; Fax: (08) 9325 5099
Attention: Associate of Vice President Judge Sharp: Candice BY FACSIMILE
Dear Sirs
VR 87 OF 2009: LPB V CHIN
Thank you for your transcript to the above proceedings for Friday, 8th April, 2011 which I received yesterday. After reading through it, I feel it is no longer necessary (as requested earlier by me) for the learned Judge Sharp to provide me with a Statement of Reason to enable me “to understand the reason for having the matter set down for trial on 11.10.2011 where there are no issues to be tried and the LPCC has failed to respond to my 8 questions in my letter dated 21.3.2011 to LPCC and SAT”. I therefore apologized for the inconvenience caused to His Honour.
I would like to update the learned Vice President of the most recent developments of my case, in terms of the following:
a) The judgment of Hall J, as agreed to by Newnes and Murphy JJA in CACV41 of 2010, is contained in CHIN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2011] WASCA 110 on delivered on 4.5.2011 (the joint judgment).
b) I find that the joint judgment contains defective statement of reasons which does not address the four issues of Pseudo Board, the Thies and Taylor misconduct and the Steytler P Consent Judgment in CACV 43 of 2007, in the light of the LPCC having admitted to my charges as encompassed by them (the issues), by not defending them. As a result, those issues are not res judicata and can be re-litigated, until they are being resolved by a statement of reason that addresses them.
c) The only remedy available to me now, to re-open CACV 41 of 2010, is through the Prerogative Writ Orders by my invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, within the time frame of 6 months from the date of that judgment as stipulated by the Rules. By the time the VR87 of 2009 is heard on 11.10.2011, my case, if not re-opened within that time-frame, would be rendered beyond redemption.
d) Hopefully, I am awaiting the judgment of Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010 to address the Taylor issue, successfully. I am also waiting for the CIV 1491 of 2011 to be settled affecting the Thies issue, which is scheduled to be heard tomorrow. If these two issues were settled by then, then there would remain only two issues in CACV41 of 2010 to be re-opened i.e. the Pseudo Board and the Steytler Consent Judgment issues. I want to insure that these two issues will not go wrong in VR87 of 2009 on the scheduled hearing on 10.11.2011 and hence, its urgency to be dealt with in the re-opening of the CACV 41 of 2010. If SAT can advise me otherwise, I would be willing to take up that position as advised, so as to avoid further waste of efforts in re-opening CACV 41 of 2010.
e) You would also appreciate that I have written to the State Solicitor regarding the intention of the Principal Registrar to sue me for abuse of court process in CIV1869 of 2011. I am getting some respite because of my third letter to the State Solicitor of WA dated 25.4.2011 is asking him, as the solicitor for the Principal Registrar to stop prosecuting for an alleged abuse of process which is a non-issue. I have been maliciously prosecuted by the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 because it commences that action to prosecute me on the res judicata issues already decided by Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006; that was already set aside by the Steytler P Consent Judgment. On the other hand, I have not abused the process of court because I have not been untruthful or have manipulated the proceedings fraudulently in my defence of having been maliciously attacked.
f) I have received a letter from the State Attorney General dated 4.5.2011 lamenting the fact that the judiciary of Western Australia is independent and therefore it is immune from any interference by the Honourable Minister Christian Porter. But Minister Porter can also look into the integrity and impartiality aspects of the judicial system of WA to find out if there are any elements of dishonesty in decision making and whether irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. This would have warranted Minister Porter’s interference.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
