Federal Court. Can it be said that, "once judgment has been reserved, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Court will subsequently give leave to a party to re-open the case"? Were the circumstances of this case, where the applicant was a self-represented litigant seeking habeas corpus, exceptional? Can it be said that "abuse of process principles can be applied in respect of repeated applications for the issue of writs of habeas corpus within a short time frame"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that, "once judgment has been reserved, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Court will subsequently give leave to a party to re-open the case"?
Question 2: Were the circumstances of this case, where the applicant was a self-represented litigant seeking relief of the utmost seriousness (habeas corpus), exceptional so as to justify the FCA giving leave to the applicant to re-open the case after judgement was reserved?
Question 3: Can it be said that "abuse of process principles can be applied in respect of repeated applications for the issue of writs of habeas corpus within a short time frame"?
Question 4: Does the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (Imp) still operate in Australia?
Question 5: Does the principle of res judicata apply in respect of the question whether the applicant is presently unlawfully detained?
Question 6: In light of the High Court decision in AJL20, was the applicant's habeas corpus application competent?
Question 7: Is it inappropriate for a court make a costs order against an applicant who failed to obtain the writ of habeas corpus?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: