Federal Court of Australia – Letter (24 December 2024)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

23 December 2024

Jan Marek Kant

By email only: jmjarosz01@gmail.com

Dear Mr Kant

RE: DOCUMENTS PRESENTED FOR FILING ON 9 DECEMBER 2024

I refer to the following documents presented via eLodgement (ID: 1404187) to the Victorian Registry of the Federal Court of Australia:
(a) Form 69 originating application dated 9 December 2024 ;
(b) Form 59 affidavit of Jan Marek Kant made on 9 December 2024;
(c) Form 18 Notice of a Constitutional matter dated 9 December 2024 (together, the Documents).

The Documents have been referred to me in my capacity as duty registrar for consideration as to whether the Registry should accept them for filing.

Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) states that a Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court, or is frivolous or vexatious on the face of the document, or by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document.

I understand that the purpose of the Documents is to commence an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in the court’s original jurisdiction, for an injunction that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police ( AFP) produce to you all records of personal information about you in the possession, custody or power of the AFP.

You have also lodged a Notice of a Constitutional matter which states, amongst other things, that the facts showing that s 78B of the Judiciary Act applies are that “Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is ultra vires the Constitution”.

An application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act must contain particulars of the “matter” in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth. In my view, on their face, the Documents fail to disclose any such “matter”.

It is similarly unclear why you say why there is a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation for the purpose of s 78B of the Judiciary Act .

In the above circumstances I consider the Documents to constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and I refuse to accept them for filing.

I enclose the Documents by way of return.

Yours sincerely

National Judicial Registrar Edwards

2