Wood v Queensland[2024] QSC 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Application

1. [1]
   The State of Queensland, which is the defendant in this proceeding, has applied for orders that:

   1. pursuant to r 171(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR), the amended statement of claim filed on 7 December 2023 and the further and better particulars filed on 3 November 2022 be struck out in their entirety, or in part;
   2. pursuant to rr 16(e) or 16(i) of the UCPR and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to control its own process, the amended claim filed on 7 December 2023 be set aside, or alternatively amended.
2. [2]
   The plaintiff (Mr Wood) submitted that the application was unnecessary because he would have amended the claim and the statement of claim if the State of Queensland had raised its complaints about those documents with him.  Having regard to Mr Wood’s submissions before me, I doubt whether the course he suggested would have avoided the present application.  In any event, Mr Wood had not prepared a draft amended claim or draft amended statement of claim which would, on his argument, address the criticisms made by the State of Queensland.  In those circumstances, I proceeded to hear the parties’ submissions on the application.

Mr Wood’s claim against the State of Queensland

3. [3]
   There is no dispute that, on 15 October 2018, Mr Wood was arrested and charged by police with wilful damage and obstructing police.  His claims in this proceeding stem from that arrest.
4. [4]
   Mr Wood commenced the proceeding in June 2022 against four defendants: “the Queensland Government (DJAG)”, “the Queensland Police Service”, Daniel Egan and Michael Lee.  Mr Egan is the police officer who arrested and charged Mr Wood.  Mr Lee is a police officer who acted as the prosecutor in connection with the charges.
5. [5]
   When he commenced the proceeding, Mr Wood claimed the following relief:^[1]

“Pure Mental Harm – $30,000,000.00

Financial Loss – $500,000.00

Malicious Prosecution – $60,000,000.00

Assault – $250,000.00

Fraud – $250,000.00

Destruction of Evidence – $25,000,000.00

False imprisonment – $10,000,000.00

False Arrest – $15,000,000.00”

6. [6]
   The statement of claim pleaded the following facts in support of the claimed relief:

“1. On the 15th of October 2018, [Mr Wood] was arrested and charged with Wilful Damage and Obstruct Police by Daniel Egan of the QPS. 

2.  During the arrest Daniel Egan assaulted [Mr Wood].

3.  [Mr Wood] was taken to the Indooroopilly Police Station where he was refused his basic human rights including the right to call a lawyer and the right to be questioned.

4.  [Mr Wood] was then charged with wilful damage and obstruct police.

5.  The defendant then falsified a number of documents relating to the matter including the QP9.

6.  The defendant then deleted evidence relating to the matter namely the CCTV footage of the incident in contravention of the QPD [sic] retention and disposal schedule.

7.  The defendant took a fraudulent statement from the complainant.

8.  The defendant attempted to prosecute [Mr Wood] knowing the prosecution had no possibility of success.

9.  It is alleged that the defendant acted fraudulently in an attempt have [sic] [Mr Wood] found guilty of charges he was, in fact innocent of.”

7. [7]
   On 7 September 2022, Crown Law wrote a letter to Mr Wood pursuant to r 444 of the UCPR complaining that, among other things, Mr Wood had not commenced his proceeding against the proper defendant and that the statement of claim lacked sufficient particulars.  Crown Law enclosed a request for further particulars with the r 444 letter (Request).
8. [8]
   On 13 October 2022, the parties consented to an order that the claim and statement of claim be amended to remove the four initial defendants and to substitute the State of Queensland as the defendant.  Mr Wood filed those amended documents on 3 November 2022.^[2]  The facts alleged in the amended statement of claim were the same facts alleged in the statement of claim.  Mr Wood also filed the document titled “Better and Further Particulars”^[3] (Particulars) on the same day in response to the Request.

Mr Wood’s earlier application for leave to amend

9. [9]
   On 26 June 2023, Mr Wood filed an application^[4] seeking to amend his claim and statement of claim.  The amendments sought were to:

   1. reinstate the Queensland Police Service, Mr Egan and Mr Lee as defendants;
   2. add the complainant on the charge for wilful damage as a defendant;
   3. remove his claim for damages for pure mental harm and replace it with a claim for aggravated damages;
   4. add additional claims for damages.
10. [10]
    The additional causes of action for which Mr Wood sought leave to amend were identified in his written outline of submissions on that application as claims for damages for:^[5]

“… battery, malfeasance in public office, exemplary damages, parasitic damages, conspiring to bring false accusation, fabrication of evidence, attempting to pervert the course of justice, conspiring to compound an indictable offence, official corruption not judicial but relating to offences, perjury, corruption of witnesses (or in the alternative deceiving witnesses), and conspiring to defeat justice.”

11. [11]
    Mr Wood’s application was heard by Kelly J on 6 July 2023.  In his reasons for judgment,^[6] his Honour noted that the State of Queensland had not applied to strike out any part of the amended claim, the amended statement of claim or the Particulars.
12. [12]
    Kelly J granted leave to Mr Wood to amend the amended claim and the amended statement of claim to:

    1. delete the claim for damages for pure mental harm;
    2. include a claim for battery on the basis that the particulars of that claim relied upon by Mr Wood are contained in the Particulars;
    3. include claims for aggravated and punitive damages on the basis that the particulars of all matters relied upon by Mr Wood in respect of those claims are contained in the Particulars.
13. [13]
    Mr Wood’s application for leave to amend was otherwise dismissed.
14. [14]
    In refusing to grant leave to amend to claim parasitic damages, Kelly J observed that the proposed claim was unparticularised and that Mr Wood made no attempt to explain that claim, its proposed amount or manner of calculation.^[7]
15. [15]
    As to why leave was refused to amend to add new causes of action for “… malfeasance in public office … conspiring to bring false accusation, fabrication of evidence, attempting to pervert the course of justice, conspiring to compound an indictable offence, official corruption not judicial but relating to offences, perjury, corruption of witnesses (or in the alternative deceiving witnesses), and conspiring to defeat justice”, Kelly J observed that Mr Wood had not attempted to produce a proposed pleading in respect of those suggested causes of action.^[8]  His Honour also referred to the requirement in rr 150(1) and (2) of the UCPR that a litigant who seeks to make allegations involving malice or ill will, motive, intention or other condition of mind, specifically plead those matters, including any fact from which any of those matters are claimed to be in inference, and to the requirement that allegations of serious misconduct, like fraud, must be pleaded specifically and with particularity.^[9]  Ultimately, Kelly J was not satisfied on the material before him that a pleading could be prepared which would comply with the pleading rules in relation to the proposed new causes of action. 
16. [16]
    Mr Wood did not appeal the decision of Kelly J.
17. [17]
    I was informed during the hearing of the present application that the matter has been listed for hearing before a jury for three days commencing on 29 July 2024.

The amendments made by Mr Wood after the decision of Kelly J

18. [18]
    On 7 December 2023, Mr Wood filed a further amended claim and a further amended statement of claim,^[10] purportedly pursuant to the orders made by Kelly J. 
19. [19]
    The relief sought in the amended claim is as follows:

“Aggravated Damages – $300,000,000.00

Financial Loss – $500,000.00

Malicious Prosecution – $600,000,000.00

Assault – $2,500,000.00

Battery - $10,000,000.00

Fraud – $2,500,000.00

Fabrication of evidence – $250,000,000.00

False imprisonment – $100,000,000.00

False Arrest – $150,000,000.00

Malfeasance in Public Office – $100,000,000.00

Exemplary damages – $250,000,000.00

Parasitic damages – $300,000,000.00

Conspiracy to bring false accusation – $1,000,000,000.00

Attempting to pervert the course of justice – $500,000,000.00

Compounding and [sic] indictable offence – $1,000,000,000.00

Official corruption not judicial but relating to offences – $500,000,000.00

Judicial corruption – $1,000,000,000.00

Corruption of witnesses (alternatively deceiving witnesses) – $500,000,000.00

Conspiring to defeat justice – $1,000,000,000.00”

20. [20]
    The statement of claim was amended to:

    1. plead in paragraph 5 that Mr Egan was the person who falsified documents;
    2. plead in paragraph 6 that Mr Egan and another police officer named Shane Hancock deleted evidence comprising CCTV footage of the incident which founded the charge of wilful damage;
    3. claim damages in the prayer for relief in the same amounts and for the same causes of action as identified in the amended claim (see [19] above).
21. [21]
    Mr Wood also included the following statement at the end of the amended statement of claim:

“This pleading was settled by Ian Andrew Wood of Counsel given it is clear that Mr Wood is substantially more qualified than any corrupt and criminal idiot working in the inappropriately named ‘Justice’ system.”

22. [22]
    Mr Wood did not amend the Particulars when he filed the amended claim and the amended statement of claim.

The scope of the strike out application

23. [23]
    Although the relief claimed on the present application is expressed in broad terms (see [1] above), the State of Queensland did not ultimately press its application to have the amended statement of claim and the Particulars struck out entirely, or to set aside the amended claim.  Instead, the strikeout application was pursued by reference to marked up copies of the amended claim, the amended statement of claim and the Particulars which identified those parts of each document the State of Queensland submitted should be struck out.^[11]  The State of Queensland expressly acknowledged that it did not seek to strike out causes of action which Mr Wood had earlier pleaded as arising from his arrest and the laying of charges by police.^[12]  I have approached the application on that basis.

A preliminary point

24. [24]
    Mr Wood submitted that I did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the present application.  He argued that the application could only be heard by Kelly J because it concerns his Honour’s earlier decision on the application for leave to amend.  That submission is incorrect.  The Court has jurisdiction over the proceeding.  The State of Queensland filed its strike out application to be heard in the Court’s applications list in the usual way.  Although the strike out application is based, in part, on the reasons for the decision given by Kelly J, it is separate from the earlier application for leave to amend.  Any judge of the Court sitting in the applications list has jurisdiction to hear such an application.

Strike out of parts of the amended claim and the amended statement of claim

25. [25]
    The State of Queensland seeks to strike out the following claims which appear in the amended claim and in the prayer for relief in the amended statement of claim:

    1. Fraud – $2,500,000.00
    2. Fabrication of evidence – $250,000,000.00
    3. Malfeasance in Public Office – $100,000,000.00
    4. Parasitic damages – $300,000,000.00
    5. Conspiracy to bring false accusation – $1,000,000,000.00
    6. Attempting to pervert the course of justice – $500,000,000.00
    7. Compounding an indictable offence – $1,000,000,000.00
    8. Official corruption not judicial but relating to offences – $500,000,000.00
    9. Judicial corruption – $1,000,000,000.00
    10. Corruption of witnesses (alternatively deceiving witnesses) – $500,000,000.00
    11. Conspiring to defeat justice – $1,000,000,000.00.
26. [26]
    The State of Queensland submits that each of these causes of action or claims for relief should be struck out for one or both of the following reasons:

    1. the amendment was made in defiance of the refusal by Kelly J to grant leave to amend to include the new cause of action or claim for relief;
    2. the cause of action could not succeed because no such cause of action exists.

Causes of action for which leave to amend was previously refused

27. [27]
    I accept that, as summarised at [12]–[15] above, Kelly J refused to grant leave to Mr Wood to claim “parasitic damages” or to add new causes of action for: malfeasance in public office; conspiring to bring false accusation; fabrication of evidence; attempting to pervert the course of justice; conspiring to compound an indictable offence; official corruption not judicial but relating to offences; corruption of witnesses (or in the alternative deceiving witnesses); and conspiring to defeat justice.
28. [28]
    Mr Wood’s inclusion of those claims in the amended claim and in the prayer for relief in the amended statement of claim means that the documents do not comply with the decision of Kelly J.  The claims for which Kelly J refused to grant leave should be struck out from the amended claim and from the prayer for relief in the amended statement of claim on that basis. 
29. [29]
    As I will come to shortly, the majority of these claims do not involve a cause of action for which Mr Wood has a private right of action.  The exception is malfeasance (or misfeasance) in public office.  As to that, the requirement for the facts alleged in support of such a claim to be pleaded specifically and with particularity was identified in Kelly J’s decision (as explained in [15] above).  Mr Wood did not amend the material facts pleaded in his amended statement of claim to address this issue.  The amended statement of claim still does not plead the allegations of serious misconduct with sufficient specificity or particularity to permit such a claim to proceed.  Nor did Mr Wood put any material before the Court on the present application which would suggest that a pleading of such a claim could be prepared which would comply with the pleading rules.  I respectfully agree with the decision of Kelly J, for the reasons his Honour gave, that Mr Wood should not be permitted to pursue a claim for malfeasance (or misfeasance) in public office.

Claims for which Mr Wood has no private right of action

30. [30]
    The State of Queensland submitted that Mr Wood’s claims for fraud, fabrication of evidence, conspiracy to bring false accusation, attempting to pervert the course of justice, compounding an indictable offence, official corruption not judicial but relating to offences, judicial corruption, corruption of witnesses and conspiring to defeat justice are based on criminal offences,^[13] not civil causes of action known to the law. 
31. [31]
    In response, Mr Wood referred to the High Court decision in Plenty v Dillon^[14] and submitted that it established that a criminal act (in that case a trespass to land) could be the subject of an award of general damages.  Mr Wood cited the following passage from the joint judgment of Gaudron and McHugh JJ in that case:^[15]

“In his judgment, the learned trial judge said that, even if a trespass had occurred, it was ‘of such a trifling nature as not to found [sic] in damages’.  However, once a plaintiff obtains a verdict in an action of trespass, he or she is entitled to an award of damages.  In addition, we would unhesitatingly reject the suggestion that this trespass was of a trifling nature.  The first and second respondents deliberately entered the appellant's land against his express wish.  True it is that the entry itself caused no damage to the appellant's land.  But the purpose of an action for trespass to land is not merely to compensate the plaintiff for damage to the land.  That action also serves the purpose of vindicating the plaintiff's right to the exclusive use and occupation of his or her land.”

32. [32]
    Neither that passage nor any other part of the High Court’s decision supports Mr Wood’s submission.  Although trespass can be a criminal offence, it is also a civil cause of action which sounds in damages.  That is what Gaudron and McHugh JJ referred to as the “action for trespass” in the passage cited by Mr Wood.  The award of damages in such an action provides no support for Mr Wood’s submission that a person who claims to be the victim of a criminal offence can claim general damages in a civil proceeding.
33. [33]
    Mr Wood did not identify any source of a private right of action for damages for the claims based on criminal offences.  He appeared to submit that it was unnecessary for him to do so in circumstances where he is a self-represented litigant.  Not only is that submission at odds with the statement added to the amended statement of claim referred to at [21] above, it ignores the fact that it is for a plaintiff who commences a proceeding – whether that plaintiff be legally represented or not – and not for the Court to identify a cause of action known to the law and to plead the allegations relied upon to establish that cause of action in compliance with the requirements of the UCPR.
34. [34]
    Mr Wood made submissions about the rights of citizens having to be supported by effective sanctions^[16] which might be understood as the basis for a claim for breach of statutory duty. 
35. [35]
    In Young v Crime and Corruption Commission,^[17] McMurdo JA (with whom Fraser and Morrison JJA agreed) said that more than a breach of a duty imposed by a statute is required for the existence of a right of action for damages for such breach.  A right of action only exists where a statute imposes a duty for the protection or benefit of a particular class of persons, from which it can been seen that, upon its proper construction, the statute intends to provide a ground of civil liability when the breach of the duty causes injury or damage.
36. [36]
    That requirement is not satisfied in respect of the claims Mr Wood has added based on criminal offending.  As Crow J observed in Dickson v Cubela,^[18] the provisions of the Criminal Code do not give rise to any right of action which may form the basis of a claim for breach of statutory duty.
37. [37]
    Mr Wood’s reference to “fraud” might also be understood to be a claim for damages for the tort of deceit.  The elements of that cause of action are identified in Magill v Magill.^[19]  As Gummow, Kirby and Crennan JJ observed in that case, the need to satisfy each element is strictly enforced because fraud is such a serious allegation.  Mr Wood has not pleaded material facts in his amended statement of claim which, if proved, would establish all the elements of the tort of deceit.

Conclusion on the amended claim and the amended statement of claim  

38. [38]
    Mr Wood relied on the well-known statements by Barwick CJ in General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)^[20] that the jurisdiction to summarily terminate an action should be employed sparingly and only in a clear case.
39. [39]
    Notwithstanding those considerations, I am satisfied for the reasons set out above that it is appropriate to order that the claims the subject of the application by the State of Queensland be struck out from the amended claim and from the prayer for relief in the amended statement of claim.

Strikeout of parts of the Particulars

40. [40]
    The Particulars are expressed to have been prepared and delivered in response to the Request made on 7 September 2022 (see [7] above).
41. [41]
    The Particulars consist of:

    1. 40 numbered paragraphs;
    2. additional paragraphs providing particulars of the amount of damages sought by Mr Wood under the various claims he advanced when he commenced the proceeding;
    3. further unnumbered paragraphs which appear immediately after paragraph 40 (a single paragraph) and after the paragraphs providing particulars of the quantum of damages (a further three paragraphs on the last two pages of the document).

Paragraphs 15 to 30 of the Particulars

42. [42]
    The first part of the Particulars the State of Queensland seeks to have struck out is paragraphs 15 to 28 inclusive.  These paragraphs appear to be directed to paragraph 3 of the Request which sought particulars of (among other things) which human rights Mr Wood alleges were denied to him. 
43. [43]
    Paragraphs 15 to 28 each set out the content of statutory provisions within the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HRA) and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA).  The content of those paragraphs can be summarised as follows:

    1. paragraphs 15 to 18 recite provisions of the HRA which address the application of that legislation to public entities;
    2. paragraphs 19 to 21 recite provisions of the HRA which address human rights in general terms;
    3. paragraphs 22 to 25 recite provisions of the HRA which establish specific rights Mr Wood appears to rely upon in his claim;
    4. paragraphs 26 to 28 recite provisions of the PPRA which Mr Wood appears to rely upon in his claim.
44. [44]
    The complaint made by the State of Queensland is that paragraphs 15 to 28 state matters of law not conclusions of law, and that Mr Wood has not pleaded any material facts in relation to those matters of law. 
45. [45]
    Except for paragraph 24, I am not satisfied that there is a proper basis to strike out paragraphs 15 to 28 of the Particulars.  In those paragraphs, Mr Wood has provided particulars of the statutory basis for his allegation in paragraph 3 of the amended statement of claim that he was denied certain rights when he was taken to the Indooroopilly police station on 15 October 2018.  The conduct which Mr Wood asserts meant he was denied his rights is set out in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Particulars.  I do not consider that Mr Wood’s recitation of the statutory basis of his claim that he was denied his rights meets any of the various descriptions in r 162(1) which engage the discretion to strike out a particular (tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding; unnecessary or scandalous; frivolous or vexatious; otherwise an abuse of the process of the court).  I decline to strike out paragraphs 15 to 23 and 25 to 28 of the Particulars.  I also decline to strike out the cross-reference to those paragraphs in paragraph 29 of the Particulars.
46. [46]
    The exception to this conclusion is paragraph 24 of the Particulars.  That paragraph sets out the content of s 31(1) of the HRA as follows: “A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.”  Mr Wood does not allege in the amended statement of claim that the charges of wilful damage and obstructing police were decided otherwise than by “a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.”  Consequently, Mr Wood’s reference to s 31 of the HRA in paragraph 24 of the Particulars, as well as his assertion in paragraph 30 of the Particulars that s 31 of the HRA was breached, goes beyond the scope of his pleaded case. I am satisfied that those particulars have the tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding and that they are unnecessary having regard to the scope of the pleaded case.  In those circumstances I am satisfied that paragraphs 24 and 30 of the Particulars should be struck out.

Paragraph 31 of the Particulars

47. [47]
    Paragraph 31 of the Particulars is apparently addressed to paragraph 4 of the Request which sought (among other things) particulars of the persons alleged to have falsified documents.  Paragraph 31 of Particulars states that Mr Egan is alleged to have falsified the QP9 for the charges of wilful damage and obstructing police by stating that Mr Wood refused to take part in a police interview, and that he did so in conjunction with:

“Police Prosecutions, Police Prosecutor Michael Lee, Senior Constable Christopher Leonard (Indooroopilly Police Station), Shane Hancock (head of Indooroopilly Police Station at the time), and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

48. [48]
    The State of Queensland seeks to have the reference to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) struck out of paragraph 31.
49. [49]
    I am satisfied that the reference to the ODPP in paragraph 31 has a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.  That is because neither the amended statement of claim nor the balance of the Particulars sets out any factual basis for the assertion that anyone from the ODPP was involved in any way in the alleged falsification of the QP9 by Mr Egan.  In those circumstances, and where Mr Wood has not identified any person within the ODPP who he claims was involved in the alleged falsification, the State of Queensland cannot meet that part of the case against it. The reference to the ODPP in paragraph 31 of the Particulars should be struck out.

Paragraphs 32 to 34 of the Particulars

50. [50]
    The State of Queensland seeks to strike out parts of each of these paragraphs on the basis that they refer to matters which are not relevant to the pleaded cause of action.
51. [51]
    Paragraph 32 of the Particulars asserts that Mr Hancock falsified a statement concerning the retention of CCTV footage recorded at the Indooroopilly police station, and that Mr Hancock gave evidence under oath concerning this statement before the Brisbane District Court.  The State of Queensland seeks to strike out the final two sentences of paragraph 32 which state:

“The statement and the transcript of this proceeding can be obtained from the Office of the Director of Public prosecutions should you wish to view it.  The date the statement was made is unknown at this time.”

52. [52]
    Paragraph 33 of the Particulars asserts that the complainant in relation to the charge of wilful damage falsified quotes for the repair of the damage Mr Wood was alleged to have done to her car, and that Mr Egan and Mr Lee knew of this.  The State of Queensland seeks to strike out the final sentence of paragraph 33 which states:

“Should you wish to view these quotes, I’m sure Police Prosecutions can furnish you with a copy.”

53. [53]
    Paragraph 34 of the Particulars addresses Mr Wood’s assertion that Mr Hancock deleted CCTV footage of him in custody at the Indooroopilly police station.  The State of Queensland seeks to strike out the final three sentences of paragraph 34 which state:

“The 2018 Queensland Police Service Retention and Disposal Schedule is quite clear about the retention period for CCTV footage from stations, and the Queensland Government guideline on retaining CCTV footage that has legal repercussions is quite clear on the retention period required by them.  It is substantially longer than 50 days.  The material alluded to in this paragraph can be obtained from either the Queensland Police Service or the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

54. [54]
    Read in the context of each relevant paragraph, the sentences which the State of Queensland has complained about seem to me to be information provided by Mr Wood to explain the basis of his claim, including by indicating where the State of Queensland might locate the various documents he refers to in those paragraphs.  While it might be said that these parts of each particular are not strictly necessary (see r 162(1)(b) of the UCPR), I am not persuaded that the effect of their inclusion in the Particulars warrants an order to strike them out.  I decline to strike out any part of paragraphs 32 to 34 of the Particulars.

Paragraph 35 of the Particulars

55. [55]
    Paragraph 35 of the Particulars commences with the assertion that Mr Egan (in conjunction with the complainant in respect of the charge of wilful damage, Mr Leonard and Mr Hancock) included fraudulent information in the complainant’s statement: namely, that the complainant saw Mr Wood’s vehicle and trailer on the morning when he was alleged to have caused wilful damage to her car.  The State of Queensland then seeks to strike out a sentence from paragraph 35 which reads:

“The reason for this information is that [Mr Wood] has a unique trailer, meaning that it could not possibly be mistaken for anyone else’s vehicle, which was to be the basis for the identification.”

56. [56]
    Paragraph 35 then proceeds to assert that Mr Wood became aware upon seeing the complainant’s statement that the charge against him had been engineered by the police because the complainant could not have seen his vehicle and trailer on the morning the alleged wilful damage was alleged to have occurred.  That is because, on Mr Wood’s case, his vehicle and trailer were being worked on at a mechanic’s workshop on that date.  The State of Queensland then seeks to strike out the following passage:

“An affidavit was obtained from the mechanic stating such which was consequently supplied to Prosecutor Michael Lee and resulted in him withdrawing the charge the morning the trial was due to begin.  The evidence of these allegations (apart from being the complainants [sic] statement and affidavit of the mechanic) will come from what will no doubt be a number of emails between the officers involved and the complainant which will be obtained from the respective internet service providers by subpoena once this matter is properly filed and a return date can be set.  The time and place the statement was taken is not able to be provided at this time, however inquiry on your behalf to the Queensland Police Service will no doubt render the statement available to you.  Should you really insist that I provide you with the specific details I can have them provided however it seems immaterial in light of your ability and the facts outlined above.  It should also be noted that no action was taken against the complainant for making a statement she knew to be false.  That in and of itself speaks volumes about the intention of the parties involved.  Should you wish to view any of the other material (including the affidavit of the mechanic involved), I have no doubt the Queensland Police Service will be able to supply you with copies.”

57. [57]
    I am not persuaded that I should strike out the parts of paragraph 35 of the Particulars which the State of Queensland has impugned.  The sentence extracted at [55] forms part of Mr Wood’s explanation of the basis for his allegation in paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim that a fraudulent statement was taken from the complainant.  The passage extracted at [56] is part of Mr Wood’s explanation of the relevance of that allegation to his claim for malicious prosecution.  As already noted above at [23], the State of Queensland did not seek to strike out those aspects of Mr Wood’s claims.  It is true that the tone of the impugned passages is argumentative and that the reference in the second passage to the evidence which Mr Wood says will make good his assertions is not a necessary particular of the relevant allegation.  Nevertheless, considered in the context of the parts of paragraph 35 which the State of Queensland does not seek to strike out, I am not satisfied that the effect of the impugned parts of paragraph 35 warrants an order to strike them out.

Paragraph 36 of the Particulars

58. [58]
    Paragraph 36 of the Particulars sets out the basis for Mr Wood’s allegation that Mr Egan and Mr Lee acted maliciously in initiating and maintaining the prosecution of the charges of wilful damage and obstructing police.  In that paragraph, Mr Wood asserts that malicious intent can be inferred from email communications between Mr Lee and himself.  The State of Queensland seeks to strike out the final sentence of the paragraph which reads as follows:

“Should you wish to view the full scope of the actions of Police Prosecutions in this regard, I have no doubt the Queensland Police Service can furnish you with the complete set of emails that took place between [Mr Wood] and Michael Lee.”

59. [59]
    For the same reasons given in relation to paragraphs 32 to 34, I am not persuaded that the effect of including this sentence in paragraph 36 of the Particulars warrants an order to strike it out.

Paragraph 37 of the Particulars

60. [60]
    The first sentence of paragraph 37 states that the four initial defendants to the proceeding are alleged to have acted fraudulently, along with the following entities and individuals identified in parentheses as follows:

“… (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Jordan Daniels, Shane Hancock, Christopher Leonard, unknown officers of the Indooroopilly Police Station, Police Prosecutions).”

61. [61]
    The State of Queensland seeks to strike out the reference to these other entities and individuals from the first sentence of paragraph 37.
62. [62]
    I am not persuaded that there is a proper basis to strike out the reference to Mr Daniels, Mr Hancock or Mr Leonard.  Each of those persons has been identified in other parts of the Particulars which the State of Queensland has not sought to strike out.^[21]
63. [63]
    I am satisfied, however, that the reference to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, unknown officers of the Indooroopilly police station and Police Prosecutions should be struck out.  To the extent that reference is intended to extend the allegation of fraudulent conduct beyond the persons identified by Mr Wood in the amended statement of claim and the Particulars to other unidentified individuals, it would have the tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.  The State of Queensland cannot meet that part of the case against it.
64. [64]
    The balance of paragraph 37 contains serious allegations of corrupt conduct on the part of a magistrate (who is said to have conspired with unidentified persons from the Queensland Police Service, Police Prosecutions and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) as well as two judges of this Court.  Those claims, which Mr Wood has made without any factual foundation, go beyond the scope of the facts pleaded in the amended statement of claim.  They have the tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.  They are scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process.  I am satisfied that the balance of paragraph 37 of the Particulars, from the beginning of the second sentence to the end of the paragraph should be struck out.

Paragraph 38 of the Particulars

65. [65]
    This paragraph describes Mr Wood’s referral of the alleged falsification of the statement by Mr Hancock to the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) and the indication that the CCC would not pursue that matter.  Once again, this paragraph contains serious allegations of corrupt conduct which go beyond the scope of the facts pleaded in the amended statement of claim.  I am satisfied that the matters raised in paragraph 38 have the tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.  They are scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process.  The whole of that paragraph should be struck out.

Paragraph 40 of the Particulars

66. [66]
    This paragraph alleges that a judge of this Court conspired with various parties to defeat Mr Wood’s professional negligence claim against the firm of solicitors who acted on his behalf in relation to the charges of wilful damage and obstructing police.  This is a further example of Mr Wood making baseless assertions of corrupt conduct.^[22]  The allegations do not relate to Mr Wood’s claim against the State of Queensland.  They are scandalous and an abuse of the Court’s process.  I am satisfied that paragraph 40 should be struck out.

Particulars of damages claimed

67. [67]
    The State of Queensland seeks to strike out the paragraphs which purport to provide particulars of the amount of damages Mr Wood has sought under his claims for:

    1. pure mental harm – $30,000,000.00;
    2. fraud – $250,000.00;
    3. destruction of evidence – $25,000,000.00.
68. [68]
    As described at [12] above, Kelly J granted leave to Mr Wood to amend the claim to remove the claim for damages for pure mental harm.  Consistently with that order, the amended claim did not include any such claim.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the particulars of the quantum of loss suffered by reason of pure mental harm are unnecessary and should be struck out.
69. [69]
    I have concluded in [30] to [37] above, that claims for damages for allegedly criminal conduct, including claims for fraud, fabrication of evidence, conspiracy to bring false accusation, attempting to pervert the course of justice, compounding an indictable offence, corruption of witnesses and conspiring to defeat justice are not claims for which Mr Wood has a private right of action.  I have ordered that those claims should be struck out.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the particulars of the damages sought in the claim for fraud and in the claim for destruction of evidence (which appears to have been replaced in the amended claim in any event) are unnecessary and should be struck out.

Other paragraphs of the Particulars

70. [70]
    Finally, the further unnumbered paragraphs referred to at [41](c) above, do not address the specific allegations pleaded in the amended statement of claim.  They are unnecessary, argumentative in nature and contain statements that are scandalous.  I am satisfied that those further unnumbered paragraphs have the tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.  Each of those paragraphs should also be struck out.

Conclusion

71. [71]
    For the reasons given above, the orders will be:

1. The reference to the following claims are to be struck out of the amended claim and the prayer for relief in the amended statement of claim:

Fraud – $2,500,000.00;

Fabrication of evidence – $250,000,000.00;

Malfeasance in Public Office – $100,000,000.00;

Parasitic damages – $300,000,000.00;

Conspiracy to bring false accusation – $1,000,000,000.00;

Attempting to pervert the course of justice – $500,000,000.00;

Compounding an indictable offence – $1,000,000,000.00;

Official corruption not judicial but relating to offences – $500,000,000.00;

Judicial corruption – $1,000,000,000.00;

Corruption of witnesses (alternatively deceiving witnesses) – $500,000,000.00;

Conspiring to defeat justice – $1,000,000,000.00.

2. The following parts of the document titled “Better and Further Particulars” filed on 3 November 2022 are to be struck out:

Paragraphs 24 and 30;

The words “and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions” in the second sentence of paragraph 31;

The words “Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions”, “unknown officers of the Indooroopilly Police Station” and “Police Prosecutions” in the first sentence of paragraph 37;

The balance of paragraph 37, from the start of the second sentence to the end of the paragraph;

Paragraph 38;

Paragraph 40;

The unnumbered paragraph appearing immediately after paragraph 40;

The paragraph commencing with the heading “Pure Mental Harm – $30,000,000.00”;

The paragraph commencing with the heading “Fraud – $250,000.00”;

The paragraph commencing with the heading “Destruction of Evidence – $25,000,000.00”;

The three unnumbered paragraphs which appear on the last two pages of the document.

72. [72]
    I will hear the parties as to costs.