Boege v Attorney General of New South Wales

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: Petronella Boege applies for an inquiry into her conviction at Bega Local Court on 5 January 2000 for one offence of common assault contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900. The prosecution case was that Ms Boege punched her husband several times in the head during a disagreement over a number of photo albums in the wider context of the breakdown of her marriage. The offence occurred in the presence of a police constable. Ms Boege was convicted and fined $500.

2. [2]

   Ms Boege appealed against her conviction to the District Court of New South Wales. On 8 March 2001, Shillington QC DCJ dismissed the appeal.

3. [3]

   Ms Boege now applies for an inquiry into her conviction pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.

4. [4]

   This application is not the first such application made by Ms Boege. There have been three previous applications. The first was considered by her Honour Adamson J in reasons delivered on 27 March 2012. The application was dismissed.

5. [5]

   Following the dismissal of that application, Ms Boege petitioned the Governor of New South Wales asking for a review of the conviction pursuant to s 76 of the Act. That petition was declined on 30 January 2013.

6. [6]

   Ms Boege made a second application to this Court pursuant to s 78 of the Act. Her Honour Wilson J refused that application: see Further application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 1925.

7. [7]

   Ms Boege made a third application to this Court pursuant to s 78 of the Act. Her Honour Adams J refused that application: see Application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 729.

8. [8]

   It is unnecessary for present purposes to refer to these applications in any more detail.

The application

1. [9]

   Ms Boege’s application is supported by extensive and detailed written submissions dated 25 July 2016, to which is annexed a significant bundle of documents. Ms Boege has also filed submissions in reply to the Attorney-General’s submissions dated 27 September 2016. In summary, Ms Boege now contends as follows:

2. [10]

   I have read Ms Boege’s submissions and considered all of the annexed material.

Consideration

1. [11]

   Section 79 (3) of the Act provides relevantly as follows:

2. [12]

   This matter has previously and obviously been dealt with under Part 7 of the Act. Three separate applications have been considered by three separate Supreme Court judges who all reached what amounts to the same conclusion. For what it is worth, I have revisited all of those decisions. The conclusions reached in each case are unexceptionable. I would also have reached the same conclusion as the judges who dealt with them.

3. [13]

   Nothing promoted or provided by Ms Boege in the present application is new. I am completely satisfied that there are no special facts or special circumstances that justify the taking of further action. In the circumstances I refuse to consider or otherwise deal with this application. It is clearly frivolous and vexatious and a monumental waste of this Court’s time. In any other litigious context it would arguably amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.