❓ Dr. Brian Walker raises concerns about alleged document alteration in Mr. Edward Bride's Supreme Court case and seeks assurance that vexatious litigant status doesn't impede impartial examination of justice concerns. The Attorney General declines to comment due to judicial independence.
AnsweredQoN 1488Legislative Council
Asked
13 November 2024
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney General
QuestionView source ↗
SUPREME COURT —
EDWARD BRIDE
1488. Hon Dr BRIAN WALKER to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Attorney General:
I refer the Attorney General to the
long-running case of Mr Edward Bride, who has repeatedly highlighted concerns
that documents he submitted to the Supreme Court have been dramatically altered
to the extent that they bear little or no relation to those originally
submitted.
(1) Is the
Attorney aware of Mr Bride's allegations that a seven-page document
submitted by him over the Supreme Court e-portal on 6 July 2022 was replaced by
a four-page document filed by the court in his name some two days later?
(2) Is the
Attorney further aware of attempts by Mr Bride to address these concerns in
correspondence with Premier McGowan, Premier Cook and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Western Australia?
(3) What
investigations has the Attorney made into these claims to determine their
validity or otherwise?
(4) Noting that Mr Bride had earlier been declared a vexatious
litigant in relation to his case against the Shire of Katanning and the
Commonwealth Bank, can the Attorney reassure the house that such a finding does
not negatively impact upon an individual's right to raise concerns as
to the quality and validity of justice in our state and to have those claims
examined in an impartial manner?
EDWARD BRIDE
1488. Hon Dr BRIAN WALKER to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Attorney General:
I refer the Attorney General to the
long-running case of Mr Edward Bride, who has repeatedly highlighted concerns
that documents he submitted to the Supreme Court have been dramatically altered
to the extent that they bear little or no relation to those originally
submitted.
(1) Is the
Attorney aware of Mr Bride's allegations that a seven-page document
submitted by him over the Supreme Court e-portal on 6 July 2022 was replaced by
a four-page document filed by the court in his name some two days later?
(2) Is the
Attorney further aware of attempts by Mr Bride to address these concerns in
correspondence with Premier McGowan, Premier Cook and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Western Australia?
(3) What
investigations has the Attorney made into these claims to determine their
validity or otherwise?
(4) Noting that Mr Bride had earlier been declared a vexatious
litigant in relation to his case against the Shire of Katanning and the
Commonwealth Bank, can the Attorney reassure the house that such a finding does
not negatively impact upon an individual's right to raise concerns as
to the quality and validity of justice in our state and to have those claims
examined in an impartial manner?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Attorney General, I provide the following response provided by the Attorney General.
(1)–(4) It
would not be appropriate for the Attorney General to comment on or intervene in
matters before the court. The judiciary is independent of government and courts
are entitled to independence in their decision-making. While the Attorney
General cannot comment on the specifics of Mr Bride's case, the
Vexations Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 is the legislation by which a person
may be declared a vexatious litigant. The purpose of that legislation is to
restrict the institution from vexatious proceedings through the implementation
of an efficient process whereby certain persons may be declared by the courts
to be vexatious litigants. The decision of who is declared a vexatious litigant
and what limits are placed upon their capacity to commence legal proceedings
without leave of the court is entirely a matter for the relevant court.
some notice of the question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Attorney General, I provide the following response provided by the Attorney General.
(1)–(4) It
would not be appropriate for the Attorney General to comment on or intervene in
matters before the court. The judiciary is independent of government and courts
are entitled to independence in their decision-making. While the Attorney
General cannot comment on the specifics of Mr Bride's case, the
Vexations Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 is the legislation by which a person
may be declared a vexatious litigant. The purpose of that legislation is to
restrict the institution from vexatious proceedings through the implementation
of an efficient process whereby certain persons may be declared by the courts
to be vexatious litigants. The decision of who is declared a vexatious litigant
and what limits are placed upon their capacity to commence legal proceedings
without leave of the court is entirely a matter for the relevant court.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.