Allan Skyring ran the section 115 currency argument persistently for many years. He raised the argument again in 2013, defending a speeding fine. After it was rejected by Magistrate Springer in the Brisbane Magistrates Court, Skyring also applied for a judicial review in Re Skyring  QSC 197 1 on the grounds that there was never any court determination on the issue, and the order declaring him a vexatious litigant should be set aside so he could institute proceedings “unencumbered”. Mullins J refused leave and dismissed the application.
“White J in the course of giving the reasons for the 1995 order referred to the disposition of the applicant’s currency issue against the applicant by Deane J in Re Skyring’s Application (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 561 which decision was upheld by the Full Court of the High Court. That the applicant’s argument was disposed on the merits has been recognised in other cases, such as Clampett v Kerslake (Electoral Commissioner of Qld)  QCA 104. 6 It is incontrovertible that the applicant’s argument about what is legal tender was authoritatively determined against him in the High Court, as accurately recorded by White J in the reasons for the 1995 order. The applicant’s desire to re-agitate an argument that has been settled authoritatively and resulted in the vexatious proceedings order against him.”
Re Skyring’s Application (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 561 is unpublished online, but I did find this statement by Deane J in a report:
“I have come to the clear conclusion that there is no substance in the argument that there is a constitution bar against the issue by the Commonwealth of paper money as legal tender. Nor in my view would there be any substance in an argument that the provisions of s 36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 are invalidated or overruled by the provisions of the Currency Act.”
It is very rare for an individual to be declared a vexatious litigant by the High Court. Only four people have been declared to be vexatious litigants by the High Court of Australia since its inception, and two of those were regarding this long-debunked currency argument. One was Patrick Cusack in Jones v Cusack  HCA 40 2 and the other was Alan Skyring in Jones v Skyring  HCA 39. 3 It was ordered that either “…shall not, without the leave of the Court or a Justice, begin any action, appeal or other proceeding in the Court.”
In Skyring v Crown Solicitor  QSC 350 4 Alan Skyring, filed an application seeking leave to bring proceedings to revoke an order declaring the applicant to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to the provisions of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 in Skyring v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group  QCA 376. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed from that order and has, by various applications, attempted unsuccessfully to have his declaration as a vexatious litigant revoked. (See Skyring v O’Shea; No 4 of 1996, 8 January 1996 (Fryberg J); Re Skyring No 178 of 1995; unreported, 23 October 1997, (Muir J); Skyring v Electoral Commission of Qld  QSC 080 (Muir J); O’Shea v Skyring, No OS 178 of 1995, unreported, 6 April 2000 (Douglas J). An application for leave to appeal against this decision was refused: Skyring v Lohe  QCA 451.)
“The applicant argues that all legislation subsequent to 1987, including the Supreme Court Act 1991, is invalid because of the unconstitutionality of the Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987, altering the Office of Governor, and that pursuant to s 53 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), the Bill for the 1987 Act could not lawfully be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen, except with the prior assent of the electorate at a referendum.”
In Skyring v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 23 ATR 84 8 the High Court of Australia held that the power conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament by the taxation power in s.51(ii) of the Commonwealth Constitution, to legislate with respect to taxation, extends to the imposition of taxation and its collection, even though it has the effect of requiring the person on which taxation is levied to pay the tax out of property which he owns.
This contention has been raised very often in the courts. You can read further cases on this website under the Tag “The Currency Argument“.
To be edited…
- 1 https://jade.io/article/299265 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/re-skyring-2013-qsc-197.pdf
- 2 https://jade.io/article/67702 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/jones-v-cusack-1992-hca-40-1992-109-alr-313-1992-66-aljr-815-27-august-1992.pdf
- 3 https://jade.io/article/67700 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/jones-v-skyring-1992-hca-39.pdf
- 4 https://jade.io/article/172533 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/skyring-v-crown-solicitor-2001-qsc-350.pdf
- 5 https://jade.io/article/206184 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/skyring-v-australia-new-zealand-banking-group-1995-qca-376..pdf
- 6 https://jade.io/article/204983 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/skyring-v-electoral-commission-of-qld-2001-qsc-080.pdf
- 7 https://jade.io/article/166793 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/skyring-v-lohe-2000-qca-451.pdf
- 8 https://jade.io/article/212132 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/re-alan-george-skyring-v-commissioner-of-taxation-1991-fca-564-92-atc-4028-1991-23-atr-84.pdf