Murray v Pinder [2020] QSC 385 was an application for judicial review in respect of certain relatively minor criminal charges which the applicant was facing in the Magistrates Court, focusing on an argument about how he is named, his inability to defend himself when wrongly named and the alleged absence of jurisdiction over his so called “juristic person“. Henry J had previously made clear that if his application really boiled down to a complaint connected with how he was named in documents served on him the application would be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. In dismissing the application, His Honour noted:
“Arguments advanced by self-represented persons about their legal identities are fashionable of late. I note the pursuit of one such argument was recently described in the Court of Appeal in Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252 as an abuse of the court’s process. Part of that argument in that case was described by the President of the Court of Appeal as “gobbledygook”, such is the absence of legitimate legal foundation for some of the theories being pushed in this type of argument lately. It is difficult to tell whether such arguments are pursued in misconceived good faith or are a quite deliberate distraction from the orderly disposition of cases according to law.”