Our Ref: CIV1689 OF 2011.
Your Ref: SSO 3289-10
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The State Solicitor for Western Australia
141 St. Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Atten: Ms. Kah Yee Loh, Solicitor.
Fax: 08 9264 1670 BY FACSIMILE
Dear Sir
CIV 1689 OF 2011: THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA V NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
I refer to your facsimile letter dated today responding to my facsimile letters to you dated 21, 22 and 25 April, 2011.
Until I hear from you responding to me each of my statements as contained in my three letters to you indicated above, I shall not be in a position to provide you with my unavailable dates and the estimated time required for the hearing.
Please note that I shall only agree to be heard before a panel of five judges from the judicial system of another State or Territory of Australia unless I am convinced by your response letter that the State Solicitor Office is strictly adhering to the rules to ensure that I will get justice at the end of day and that I am satisfied that this is not a mere exercise to get rid of me because I have been outspoken. I would like to draw your attention by repeating what the High Court per Kirby J said in Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323 in this context:
"First, it is always important for every Judge to keep an open mind in case a person who has been rejected by courts in the past may have, hidden amongst the verbiage of his or her arguments, a point which has not been previously seen and which may have merit. Vigilance, and not impatience, are specifically required where that person is not legally represented; secondly, it is regarded as a serious thing in this country to keep a person out of the courts. The rule of law requires that, ordinarily, a person should have access to the courts in order to invoke their jurisdiction. It is a rare thing to declare a person a vexatious litigant. It is extremely rare in this Court to use the power, whether under the inherent power or .....to require leave before a person may commence proceedings invoking the court's jurisdiction; thirdly, the court must never shy away from the determination of a point sought to be argued simply because it may have major ramifications. .....I should not be reluctant to provide relief on the legal grounds ...simply because to provide relief would be to attack both the banking and taxation and other economic systems of this country. The history of this Court since its establishment in 1903, including recently, has shown that the court does not refrain from offering relief where the law req Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323uires it simply because its decisions may have large consequences for the nation or particular interests in it; fourthly, ...seeking relief by way of the writs of certiorari and mandamus. It is not necessary for me, in the decision which I have arrived at, to determine whether they are in each case, or in any of the cases, the appropriate process of the court to invoke its jurisdiction. ....today unrepresented. If he had commenced proceedings by an irregular process which had any separate or different merit from the matters which have already been determined by the court, I would endeavour to assist him to get such proceedings into proper form or require him to commence again in proper form. I would not dispose of his application upon such a formal basis; ... "
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
