Two appeals made ‘scandalous’ claims

A self-represented litigant who accused police and the judiciary of corruption has had both of his appeals dismissed in a scathing decision.

Actor and singer Charles Dupois alleged that a raft of charges laid against him in 2017 were the result of a “conspiracy” between the Queensland Police Service (QPS), magistrates and Supreme Court judges, but the Brisbane Court of Appeal last week ruled his claims were “scandalous” and dismissed both of his appeals with costs.

In a 42-page decision, Judge Morrison said Mr Dupois had instituted various proceedings in the Supreme Court in a bid to prevent his committal for trial on charges of unlawful stalking; using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence; personation in general by falsely representing himself to be a person living/dead/real/fictitious; forgery and uttering.

Mr Dupois was committed for trial on these charges in November 2022.

Judge Morrison dismissed Mr Dupois’ two appeals – against QPS and Magistrate Strofield, and against QPS and Magistrate Previtera – saying “in no case (in either appeal) is any allegation of intention, conspiracy, corruption or collusion accompanied by identification of the evidence to support them”.

Police and the magistrates had sought orders to have the appeals dismissed for want of prosecution under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR); or alternatively, to have the Notices of Appeal struck out for breach of the UCPR, or alternatively, as being scandalous or vexatious.


Judge Morrison said an originating summons filed by Mr Dupois in May 2022 sought relief including a permanent stay of the charges (then the subject of a committal); the recusal of a particular magistrate “from any involvement of any sort in any matter involving me at any time”; and a recommendation from the Supreme Court of a criminal investigation into seven identified individuals: two magistrates, the former head of the “Crimes and Corruption Commission”, two prosecutors, a police officer, and Mr Dupois’ ex-partner.

Before the matter came to trial in March 2023, Mr Dupois’ request for an adjournment was refused, as was his subsequent application for a stay of that decision pending an appeal. His application for a stay of the trial was refused and the proceedings were dismissed with costs.

Mr Dupois then filed the first appeal on 26 grounds.

His subsequent application for an urgent interlocutory injunction was dismissed, as was his application for a judicial review of magistrates’ decisions.

Mr Dupois then filed the second appeal on 87 grounds.

QPS and the magistrates submitted the second appeal was futile because the indictment had already been presented in the District Court, and even if the committal decision was set aside, the indictment would still be operative.


Judge Morrison stated there had been undoubted, inordinate and inexcusable delay by the appellant in each appeal, and that the respondents had been prejudiced by this.

“They are parties to an appeal that includes grounds attacking their honesty and accusing them of systematic corruption,” he said.

“The outline should have been provided so that they could understand the case levelled at them and where the true issues lie.

“Instead, they have incurred time and expense trying to have the appellant proceed properly and have been made to wait while the appellant has defied the court.”

Justice Morrison struck out both appeals for want of prosecution.

“Both Notices of Appeal are aptly described as prolix, argumentative and scandalous. The degree of non-compliance is obvious, extensive and intolerable,” he said.


“The prolixity serves to obscure any real issues and hampers the respondents and the court in identifying the issues and determining the appeal on properly raised grounds.

“I am only too well aware that the appellant is self-represented. That does not relieve him of the need to comply with the rules which have, as their aim, the just and expeditious resolution of the real issues in dispute.”

He said Mr Dupois had an “entrenched method of accusatorial advocacy which consists of characterising every adverse result as being the product of corruption on the part of judicial officers”, and could not show any basis for his allegations.

He stated there was no reason why costs should not follow the event.

Share this article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search by keyword