Application by Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (No 6)

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: Petronella Boege applies for an inquiry into her conviction at the Bega Local Court on 5 January 2000 for one offence of common assault contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The prosecution case was that Ms Boege assaulted her former husband in October 1999 at Bega. The events the subject of the assault occurred in the context of a bitter breakdown of their marriage. Ms Boege was convicted and fined $500.

2. [2]

   Ms Boege appealed against her conviction to the District Court of New South Wales. That appeal was heard and dismissed by Shillington QC DCJ on 8 March 2001.

3. [3]

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

4. [4]

   Ms Boege has made five previous unsuccessful applications of this kind in relation to the same conviction.

5. [5]

   The first was considered by her Honour Adamson J in 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). Her Honour dismissed that application.

6. [6]

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

7. [7]

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

8. [8]

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

9. [9]

   Ms Boege made a fourth application to this Court pursuant s 78 of the Act. His Honour Harrison J (as the Chief Judge then was) refused that application: Boege v Attorney General of New South Wales [2016] NSWSC 1469. His Honour concluded his judgment by saying:

10. [10]

    Ms Boege then made a fifth application to this court pursuant s 78 of the Act with respect to her “AVO Conviction” and her assault conviction. Her Honour Schmidt J refused the application: Application by Petronella Boege pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2017] NSWSC 935. In concluding her reasons, her Honour referred to Harrison J’s judgment and said:

The application

1. [11]

   Ms Boege’s present application is supported by written submissions dated 8 September 2024 and signed 12 September 2024. The submissions are almost 15 pages in length. They are in a form which makes them difficult to summarise. There is nothing new or additional in those submissions to the substance of the matters she has repeatedly raised (and which have been rejected) in the five previous applications. I therefore do not consider it necessary to repeat in any detail the matters she seeks to raise or all of the issues she says arise. They have all been raised (and rejected) before.

2. [12]

   Ms Boege’s arguments on this application can be briefly stated as:

3. [13]

   Submissions were provided on behalf of the Attorney-General dated 19 November 2024. Those submissions helpfully recite the factual and procedural history of the matter, including each of the other five s 78 applications made by Ms Boege and refused by this Court. Those submissions also dealt with the matters raised by Ms Boege.

4. [14]

   Ms Boege filed submissions in reply to the Attorney-General’s submissions dated 13 January 2025. They are largely repetitive of the matters raised in her submissions in chief. They raise nothing new to that which has previously been dealt with.

Consideration

1. [15]

   Part 7 of the Act deals with applications to the Court by a convicted person for an inquiry into a conviction or sentence.

2. [16]

   Section 79 of the Act provides relevantly as follows:

3. [17]

   Ms Boege does not raise on this application any new fact or matter which would establish that there are special facts or special circumstances which would justify the taking of any further action with respect to her conviction. The matters she raises have all substantively been raised and dealt with in her previous Part 7 applications in respect to the same conviction. The matter has been reviewed and dealt with by five other judges of this Court. All of them have effectively reached the same conclusion.

4. [18]

   I have considered the material put before the Court by Ms Boege on this application. I am comfortably satisfied that there are no special facts or special circumstances that justify taking any further action in relation to the conviction.

5. [19]

   I have referred to the comments of Harrison J (endorsed by Schmidt J) that the applications by Ms Boege before them were frivolous and vexatious and, in any other litigious context, would arguably be an abuse of the Court. The same conclusions must be made with respect to this application. I agree with their Honours that Ms Boege’s repeated applications, on the same bases and without raising anything new or in addition to the matters that have been previously (and repeatedly) dealt with, are a monumental waste of the Court’s time.

6. [20]

   Pursuant to s 79(3) of the Act the application will not be further considered or dealt with.