Application by Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

Ms Boege has applied for another inquiry under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) into her “AVO Conviction”, which she explained in her April 2017 submission was an application dealt with by O’Connor LCM in January 2000. Ms Boege also makes reference to what transpired on her unsuccessful appeal to the District Court and asks for her assault conviction to be reviewed.

Ms Boege was convicted of having assaulted her former husband in October 1999 at Bega, for which she was fined $500. An apprehended violence order was then made for the protection of Mr Boege, in proceedings in which she was legally represented. Her appeal from that conviction failed.

Ms Boege has made four previous applications, each of which were dismissed by the Court: Boege v Attorney General of New South Wales [2016] NSWSC 1469; Application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 729; Further application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2015] NSWSC 1925; and Application by Petronella Boege for an inquiry into conviction and sentence pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (Supreme Court (NSW), Adamson J, 27 March 2012, unrep).

Following Adamson J’s decision in 2012, Ms Boege also unsuccessfully petitioned the Governor of New South Wales, asking for a review of the conviction pursuant to s 76 of the Act.

In Boege v Attorney General of New South Wales, Harrison J refused Ms Boege’s fourth application under s 79 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act, observing:

These are not judicial proceedings, but the Court may consider the written submissions made on behalf of the Attorney General on 19 May 2017, to which Ms Boege replied on 1 June: s 79(4). The Attorney contends that this application should also be dismissed under s 79(3).

Section 79(3) provides:

Ms Boege referred in her submission to Wilson J’s conclusions in Further application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. Her offence of common assault contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was there dealt with, her Honour observing:

Ms Boege now advances complaints as to evidence which she claims “was not put before the Appeal”; what transpired at the hearing; and what Mr Boege said in his statement, as well as what Senior Constable Van der Hout and she each said. Ms Boege also denies having struck her husband, as was found in the Local Court.

Ms Boege opposed her further application being dismissed under s 79(3), submitting in her reply submissions that her previous applications “do not include that both prosecution witnesses changed their evidence and that the evidence was not put before the District Court.” She also contends that she had paid a solicitor to reply to the Crown’s submissions on the application dealt with by Adamson J in 2012, but no submissions had been provided.

Ms Boege provided details of what she now contends was evidence which was not tendered. She also explained what she contends were differences in Mr Boege’s statement, his evidence in chief and cross-examination.

Ms Boege also refers to Adamson J’s observations at [56] that what was relied on did not support the proposition that the evidence was fabricated, but rather that Mr Boege and the Constable had given truthful, independent evidence.

Reference was also made to Harrison J’s refusal to consider her third application: Application of Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (No 3) at [25] and Harrison J’s observations at [12] earlier referred to.

I am satisfied that there is, in the circumstances, no question that both Ms Boege’s AVO Conviction and the appeal from the Local Court’s decision to the District Court have previously been dealt with, as Harrison J concluded. What is now raised by Ms Boege, on this fifth application, raises no special facts or special circumstances that justify the taking of any further action.

Like Harrison J, I consider that Ms Boege’s refusal to accept the rejection of her repeated applications and her pursuit of a fifth application to be frivolous and vexatious, a monumental waste of this Court’s time and in any other litigious context, unarguably amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the result, this application must also be dealt with under s 79(3). The application will accordingly not be further considered.