FDN


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA



No 921 of 2008



BETWEEN



Ranjit Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana



Appellant



and



Police



Defendant





SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT TO FULL COURT





Date of document:



Filed by the appellant Ranjit S.J.B. Rana of Unit 1/25 Hackney Road, Hackney SA 5069





































Settled by Ranjit Rana



Date and time of filing or transmission:



OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION



Grounds seeking leave to appeal



"The learned judge:



(a) erred in law, discretion and fact in dismissing making the Restraining Order against the appellant when there were no grounds either in law or fact under sections 99 and 99C of the Summary Procedures Act 1921 (SA) for making the said order by the learned magistrate below him;



(b) erred in law in allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence ;



(c) erred in law in making the said order while effectively acknowledging while making

the order that there was no proper basis for it, and that as a matter of law it was not

appropriate;



(d) erred by comparing and contrasting the sworn affidavit by his motion and this was unfair and unreasonable to the appellant, as he had only been given access to the material just prior to the appeal hearing in Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal, concerning the appellant’s Veteran’s disability pension claims under subpoena of Australian Government Solicitors; and



(e) erred by not properly considering at [3] and [7] of the judgment that the learned magistrate had provided him no reasons for the decision that he made in the judicial process. This constituted an error of law, as it served to make it difficult or perhaps impossible to determine whether the decision was based on an error of law, and whether the magistrate ought to have adjourned the matter for another day. This aspect the learned judge improperly overlooked the critical issues of law and fact.”

PS: For this hearing, the appellant is called the applicant



The test for seeking to leave to appeal is per Rana v University of South Australia (2004) FCA 559 at [16]-[17] per His Honourable Justice Lander. The applicant seeking leave to appeal is not mad and dangerous for future to cause apprehension of harm or fear to others. There was a decision by Bollen J in Bista v Rana (1996) before Bollen J in S5482 in this Supreme Court. That precedent may be useful in this case also. His Honourable Bollen J accepted a report of the applicant’s psychiatrist Dr. Cotton then. This report is now before this Court.



The SA Police’s Phil Chandler, who is also Information Manager, has led a vicious and malicious campaign against this applicant/appellant arising his compensation claim with Australian Army. The SA Police were cheesed off that the Australian Government Solicitor has subpoenaed the applicant/appellant’s personal file for psychiatric assessment. Much later the SA Police colluded with Australian Government Solicitor’s to deny him any compensation and conspired to tag the applicant/appellant suffering from paranoid, anti-social and narcissistic personality disorder, which fits a personality profile as pictorially or conceptually mapped allegedly by the Australian Government Solicitor’s Professor Robert Goldney. Such psychiatric labels no wonder would benefit the SA Police to lay fraudulent charge of Stalking Nina Gregurev and being a danger to public in terms of “public space disorder”. However, the appeal judge was misled by police lawyer in terms of the applicant/appellant’s affidavit before the learned magistrate to be inadmissible and irrelevant in most of the specifics. The applicant/appellant argues that there was no evidence to support it and/or in the alternative, the appeal judge in the hearing totally overlooked the applicant/appellant’s affidavit before the learned magistrate and such fresh evidence material before him by not properly considering it. Further, the appeal judge did not properly consider the applicant/appellant’s argument that Nina Gregurev’s unsworn and sworn affidavits with the Police Prosecutor’s affidavit at the appeal hearing was inadmissible per Rule 43.00 of the Magistrate Court Rules (Criminal), which is set out in various grounds below.



The police had laid a fraudulent charge of assault and consuming alcohol in public space in 2006. This appears in exhibit “D2” of the affidavit now before this Court. This charge now has been dealt in the Court and no conviction has been the outcome in both charges. This has dealt significant blow to the SA Police in terms of having the applicant/appellant label him a “dangerous and violent person” to benefit Nina Gregurev. The only item the SA Police were seeking “public interest immunity” was the unsworn affidavit of Nina Gregurev, which was handed over by Police Prosecutor Hoang, However, the final Police Prosecutor Hill misled the Court that Hoang in fact provided the sworn affidavit of Nina Gregurev (in his affidavit at appeal hearing), which the applicant/appellant argues were contrary to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) or similar provisions of the SA Supreme Court and SA Magistrates Court rules, as outlines in great detail above and below. The exhibit “D1” is about the psychotic allegations made by Nina Gregurev to police in 1996/1997 that the applicant/appellant is an Indian rapist Raja Ratnam. The SA Police still believes these psychotic narratives contrary to the fact that the applicant/appellant is from Nepal and has nothing to do with India.



The applicant/appellant’s argument is that mutually there has been exchange of letters and visits and gifts. There is no fear between Nina Gregurev and the applicant/appellant as demonstrated by recent Christmas card from her and now before this Court as an exhibit. The police intelligence and Nina Gregurev’s brother, a racist SA Police has concocted that the applicant/appellant sent her emails to cause her fear of being raped on 21/12/2008. There is no evidence that the applicant/appellant did that, and vigourously denies it.



It seems SA Police have sent or have caused such emails to be sent by persons known to them to cause fear to Nina Gregurev. The applicant/appellant will seek leave to hand over a ruling by His Honourable Lander J of the Federal Court in SAD 12 of 2008. This is per the case of Rana v University of Adelaide (No 2) [2008] FCA 494 decided by Lander J in 24 April 2008 at [2]-[8]. For specifics of the email see at [2]. It was not sent by the applicant/appellant in 22/12/2008 to police or others as claimed by police. The appellant thought genuinely that it was sent from University of South Australia and took Court action was subsequently dismissed. However, this sets the record straight about the appellant/applicant.



The underlying driver of this appeal is that the learned magistrate and the learned appeal judge (see his judgment at [8]-[9])overlooked the applicant/appellant’s argument and evidence material that all the unsworn and sworn affidavit of Nina Gregurev and the Police Prosecutor Hill’s affidavit was contrary to Rule 43.04 of the Magistrate Court of South Australia Rules (Criminal) amended to 26 September 2008 per Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) and /or as set down by His Honourable Justice Lander as the Full Court in Rana v University of South Australia (2004) FCA 559 at [40], and the applicant/appellant’s matter was distinguishable from Police v Gray (2001) 213 LSJS 540. All the affidavits of Nina Gregurev and the Police Prosecutor Hill’s affidavit did not comply with Rule 26 of the Magistrate Court of South Australia Rules (Criminal), and was contrary to form 36 as they did not comply with the prescription as required by law. See similar provisions in section 19 (4) and (5) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules 1992 (SA). The similar provision of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) is at Rule 162 (2) with the exception clauses 1 and 2.



There probably is similar provision to the rules in the criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Thus, last time when the applicant/appellant was before the learned appeal judge, the argument put before him about s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) was improperly overlooked on the ground that unsworn affidavit of Nina Gregurev, which was inadmissible in the magistrate court was found to be of significant probative value, to be included by the learned magistrate to arrive at a reasonable decision after all he had compelling evidence that the learned judge found. This was not supported by reasonable evidence and the learned magistrate denied the appellant/applicant procedural fairness of natural justice by denying him reasons for his decision. Thus, the applicant/appellant’s attempt in the appeal was doomed to fail, as the learned judge had great difficulty and just compared two affidavits to be consistent to be of significant probative value, and the complaints of the applicant/appellant was dismissed as no errors of law known was found by the learned judge.



The appeal judge overlooked the applicant/appellant’s argument about Rule 43.00 of the SA Magistrate Court (Criminal) or equivalent to s.75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) or per Rana v University of South Australia (2004) FCA 559 at [40]. Thus, if the affidavits of the police and Nina Gregurev were invalid by being inadmissible arising Rule 43.00 SA Magistrate Court (Criminal) or equivalent to s.75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) then the appeal was bound to succeed. Thus, the learned judge made factual error. See the principles in Desongjarus v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 21 ALD 139 at 141 and per Mason CJ in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 359-360. In the alternative, the learned judge made a jurisdictional error. See Public Service Association of South Australia v Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia, South Australian Branch (1991) 173 CLR 132 at 151 and 165 per McHugh J.



Moreover, the learned appeal judge at [3] confirmed the request of the respondent that the affidavit of the Police Prosecutor Gregory John Hill sworn on 30 July 2008 was admissible as it provided useful to the appeal judge. However, this affidavit was challenged by the applicant/appellant to be contrary to s.75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which was improperly overlooked by the appeal judge. At (d) of the affidavit Police Prosecutor Hill misled the appeal judge that Police Prosecutor Hoang provided the appellant with a copy of the victim’s affidavit (meaning to be sworn one), which was not supported by evidence. At (e) of the affidavit of the said Police Prosecutor Hill, it states that on 14/3/2008, the appellant appeared unrepresented. This is not to be the case and the appellant was not notified of the date and no discovery and subpoena issue was ever entertained by the magistrate, which he improperly overlooked the appellant/applicant’s request, which was denial of procedural fairness of natural justice. Further the learned appeal judge, who also overlooked these issues for an improper purpose. At [6] of the judgment also covers the issue of s.75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) related principles. So are at [7]-[10], which the learned appeal judge improperly overlooked the s.75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) related principles.



At [14] of the judgment, the learned appeal judge improperly introduced that the appellant/applicant was the sender of email to University of South Australia dated 21/12/2008, that alleged Nina Gregurev was going to be raped by the applicant/appellant, which is not supported by any known and reasonable evidence. It is only hearsay evidence of Nina Gregurev that she was informed by SA Police via phone and yet she has failed to draw the source of her knowledge in terms of the name of the specific police officer. Likewise, there are many hearsay evidence of the alleged victim as if she is an expert of emails that the appellant/applicant sent her emails to her by use of other peoples’ names over many years and in many situations. She is not an expert in the field to allege such matters, and the magistrate refused to strike out all those paragraphs and goes on the list. How did she know this applicant hand delivered her his personal diaries, letters and so on to generate fear?



Lastly, at [14] the learned appeal judge speculates improperly that this applicant/appellant might have known some contents of the second affidavit by 18/2/2008, which was not supported by any evidence and so he made factual and/or jurisdictional error.



The appellant believes that the decision of His Honourable David is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being considered by the appellate court, and substantial injustice will result if leave were refused supposing the decision to be wrong.



1. This is ground (a) per seeking to leave to appeal. The appellant had argued that the unsworn and unsigned affidavit that was provided to the appellant by Police Prosecutor Hoang on 29/2/2008, which was contrary to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). This was in the outline of submission to the magistrate on 14/3/2008. The authority was known to the appellant per Rana v University of South Australia (2004) FCA 559 at [40] per His Honourable Justice Lander, which says, “An affidavit which is to be used on an interlocutory application may contain hearsay evidence if the party who adduces the evidence also adduces evidence of its source: s. 75 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).”



The applicant by thorough research has found that equivalent to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), there are similar rules in this Court and the magistrates court. The new Supreme Court Rules (old Supreme Court Rule (SA) 83.04) they are Part 10 – Evidence, and 162 – form of affidavit: (1) an affidavit is to be in an approved form, (2) Subject to the following exception an affidavit is to be confined to matters that the witness knows of his or her own knowledge.



Exceptions are, 1. An affidavit made for the purpose of interlocutory proceedings may contain statements that the witness honestly believes to be true if the witness honestly also states the grounds of the belief. 2. The court may dispense with requirements of this sub rule to the extent it considers appropriate in a particular case.



The applicant also found that Rule 19 (4) and (5) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules 1992 (SA) and per form no. 31A and per Magistrates Court of SA Rules amended to 26 September 2008 and numbers 43.00 and then 43.04 and 43.04 are similar to the Supreme Court Rules and s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in interlocutory proceedings. See the precedent of NMLA v Chris Poulson Insurance Ltd (1997) 7 Tas R 10. See also hearsay rule: common law exceptions.



The police claimed before the magistrate when the applicant was present the magistrate that they were exempt under this provision and the magistrate agreed and he gave no reason. See Police v Oakley [2006] SASC 373 at [15]. The reason of the magistrate was inadequate if (a) the appeal court is unable to ascertain the reasoning upon which the decision is based; or (b) justice is not seen to have been done. The same can be said up to the confirmation hearing, the approach taken by the magistrate applying case-flow management rules and principles in a manner inconsistent with, and in conflict with, the exercise of jurisdiction as statutorily prescribed pursuant to ss. 67 and 68 of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA). The magistrate used rule 8 and rule 26 designed to achieve case flow objectives, and rule that is consistent with, and not repugnant to, the exercise of statutorily prescribed jurisdiction. See at [20]-[22] of Police v Oakley [2006] SASC 373.



The Crown Solicitor for the police is well known of his racist bias of the applicant in this matter. For example, he was before Master Rice of the District Court of SA applying to him in a civil case that the applicant Ranjit Rana brought against the police for damaging his computer hard drive by the police illegally. In that case Anthony Keane wanted this applicant to be declared a vexatious and dangerous lunatic. He admitted that Nina Gregurev was detained also under SA Mental Health Act. Master Rice rejected his application concerning this applicant. He was trying to get away with his problems of interlocutory proceedings and hearsay materials in the affidavit by citing the mater of the applicant and Nina Gregurev as lunatic proceedings. See Kavanagh v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall [1974] QB 624; [1974] 2 All ER 697 (CA). Se also High Court Rules: r 24.01.6. Federal Court Rules: O 33 r 2 (now repealed) (in proceedings other than trial and where undue delay or hardship would otherwise apply). SA Supreme Court Rules r 83.04(1). It is insufficient to identify a company as the source, and an individual must be named. The applicant argues that Nina Gregurev even as a lunatic must comply the rules of the magistrates court. For example, in her sworn and unsworn affidavit she made hearsay claim that on 22/12/2007 police rang her to warn her that the applicant had threatened to rape her. This is by analogy police being the source like the company, yet she failed to identify the name of the police individual, whether it was her brother mark Gregurev and John Hill or who was it. The notorious Police Prosecutor and its lawyers claim it did not matter and the magistrate in his discretion waived such matters. Any shred of evidence or any epistemology, methodology or ontology did not support it. The police lawyer misled the learned appeal judge.



The applicant has no conviction at all in this SA or Australia. SA Police and Nina Gregurev’s police brother has come to learn about the applicant’s paranoid schizophrenia via Australian Government Solicitor and the applicant complaining to SA Police in 2004 for alleged rape in Australian Army. This was given to SA Police’s Karen Brumpton of the Sexual Assault Unit. See SAN v COMCARE [2004] AATA 445 at [16]. From there on the SA Police took the view that the applicant is a dangerous rapist with underlying paranoid psychotic tendencies to rape and commit homicide and suicide. He has been under over zealous watch by the police with a racist agenda. In 6/6/2007, the applicant was fraudulently detained under SA Mental Health Act and as such, the applicant has a judgment pending in Federal Court for disability discrimination and racial discrimination by the police based on his psychiatric disability and Asian origins. The matter has been worse since Nina Gregurev’s brother joined SA Police and he has taken the matter in the area he worse being Elizabeth.



The applicant’s psychiatrist Professor Bal Jha has taken all the materials into account including the complaints of Nina Gregurev, SA Police and the materials in SAN v COMCARE [2004] AATA 445 at [16]. His report now before this Court in page one and list of materials he has taken into account in item number 2 factors all matters that the applicant is unstable and dangerous. Based on that it was not open to the applicant’s diabetic physician to comment about the unstable mind and paranoid schizophrenia of the and from there any inference by the learned appeal judge to forecast by linking such hearsay materials of Nina Gregurev be it sworn and unsworn affidavits and further any claims by the police in appeal hearing contrary to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and similar provisions of the SA Supreme Court or Magistrates Court.



The Police lied to Nina Gregurev and the learned magistrate that applicant threatened to rape her by sending an email to SA Police on 22/12/2007. If that was the case then why they did not arrest him the same day and take him to mental assessment like they have done in recent times. The assertions made by police were rejected by Lander J about the emails and the applicant in person to harm Nina on 22/12/2007. See Rana v University of Adelaide (No 2) [2008] FCA 941 at [5]-[9] and earlier in the decision in Rana v University of Adelaide [2008] FCA 365. However, the third respondent being University of South Australia was missing and a separate judgment concerning to Nina Gregurev being threatened issue was delivered in another judgment by Lander J with the action number Federal Court file SAD 12 of 2008 dated 7 April 2008. The date of hearing was 7 April 2008. It was the application of Thomas Martin of Minter Ellison. The outlines of false emails are at [2]-[8]. The matter has been now joined in Federal Court action number SAD 47 of 2008. The applicant has issued a writ for judicial review in the High Court number A20 of 2008. This Court should discount the falsity made by SA Police about so-called threats of the applicant to Nina Gregurev.



His Honourable Justice David erred by not taking all the affidavit materials into account and/or by improperly overlooking them all like police prosecutor’s affidavit in the appeal hearing, Nina Gregurev’s sworn and unsworn affidavits in the appeal hearing.



All affidavit materials was also before His Honourable Justice David. His Honour simply overlooked the submission for an improper purpose. The learned judge at [18] of the judgment erred in law, fact and discretion and the particulars are:



(i) The unsworn and unsigned affidavit was provided to the appellant in 29/2/2008 and was inadmissible per s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in the interlocutory hearing, and the appellant did not know about the existence of the signed affidavit that was provided to him after 2/7/2008 under subpoena in Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Thus, the appellant was prejudiced to prepare himself for confirmation hearing. Further, the learned magistrate refused discovery and issue of subpoenas to defend the allegations of the alleged victim.

(ii) The sworn affidavit also contains inadmissible evidence, as it is contrary to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). For example, at [14] of the judgment there is a reference that the appellant may have known at hearing date about the existence of the sworn affidavit. This is not supported by evidence, and was unreasonable. His Honour specifies that the alleged victim to be reliable that it was sent by the appellant to cause her fear of rape. However, it is inconsistent with Rana v University of Adelaide (No 2) [2008] FCA 494 at [2]-[8]. It could had come from the police (the alleged victim’s brother is a serving police officer) to harm the reputation of the appellant.

(iii) The learned magistrate whether the appellant attended the confirmation hearing or not would confirm the hearing as he had already sounded it on 24/1/2008, as to the emails allegation of the police intelligence that the alleged victim was going to raped by the appellant per [9] of the judgment in dot point in page 7, which says, “sent an email on 21 December 2007 threatening to rape the alleged victim;”. This is also to reference of the appellant’s reference in Rana v University of Adelaide (No 2) [2008] FCA 494 at [2]-[8]. The Court found unknown people falsely sent it (email of 21/12/2008 to Police and others, including the appellant). The above italics of the judgment of the learned judge is contrary to the sworn affidavit of the alleged victim. Such erroneous inference was unfair to the appellant for his assessment of the danger to the alleged victim in reference to the appellant’s disability. The exhibit “A” to support this notice of appeal in the appellant’s affidavit at [1] is the sworn affidavit of Nina Gregurev. The exhibit “B” of the appellant contains the reports of the appellant’s psychiatrist Professor Bal Jha and Dr. David Miller about the diabetes related disability of the appellant at [2] of the affidavit now before this Court. It was an error of fact of the learned judge to irrationally connect the appellant’s paranoid schizophrenia as to the foreseeable danger or potential danger or otherwise to the alleged victim purported to the issue of forced rape or otherwise as she inferred from the police. The details are lacking as to how, where, when and what basis.

(iv) The appellant has come to learn the police SA police and specifically Greg Hill has misled the court that actually the email was sent by Nina Gregurev to the appellant’s university as it appears in page 1 and last paragraph, and at page 4 to page 18 in the certificate identifying exhibit of Linley Martin in a matter between Rana Ranjit and Deakin University and Lin Martin in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This certificate related exhibit of Lin Martin will be exhibit “E” that matters the affidavit of this appellant in this appeal arising the fraud or deception or misleading information of the SA Police.

(v) Obviously, the SA Police and Nina Gregurev colluded and a pay back scheme was organized to get the appellant when they had failed before in to convict the appellant in false stalking charge. Apparently, the police provided the Deakin University after notifying Nina Gregurev the threat of Rana was low. See the affidavit of Nina Geguerv dated 16/1/2008 at paragraph 20, which says, “20. On 21st December 2007, I received a telephone call from police officer advising us that police received an email from Rana stating that he intend to rape me. As a result, I have been left extremely scared and frightened and my mother has been staying at my house a lot more frequently.” The actual copy of the email that the appellant got about rape related email in his Deakin University’s email system is exhibit “C” in his affidavit at [2A] before this Court.

(vi) His Honour at [10], [11] and [12] of the judgment came to conclude by inference that the alleged victim was more believable than the appellant on balance of probabilities was. He emphasizes at [12] of the judgment that the appellant suffered from type-II diabetes mellitus and paranoid schizophrenia and was receiving treatment. Further, at [11] of the judgment, the learned judge indicated that alleged victims whether sworn and unsworn affidavits supported the fact that the appellant was dangerous to the alleged victim and the magistrate had all the basis of making of the order as he was correct in his forecast about the conduct and mental instability and related danger of the appellant, and so called hearsay evidence was immaterial per ss. 9 and 34C of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA).

(vii) The allegations of rape and that the appellant was or is Indian rapist Rajaratnam that the psychotic Nina Gregurev made to SA Police in 1996/97 is exhibit “E” in the affidavit of this appellant to show her inconsistency at paragraph 14 of the sworn affidavit Nina Gregurev that the judge believed to be such sufficient evidence and being reasonable on the part of the learned magistrate to confirm the restraining order at his judgment at [10]-[13]. This was unsatisfactory and unfair pronouncement and not supported by reasonable evidence. The affidavit now before this Court and exhibit “D” shows a recent greeting card from Nina Gregurev to the appellant at [4] of the affidavit. This is conclusive proof that she does not and never have feared the appellant and is only a beat up making believe of the police.

(viii) The learned judge erred contrary to his in-depth knowledge of Rana v Hyatt Regency Hotel Ltd [2007] SASC dated 19/1/2007 also involved Nina Gregurev and related Hyatt Gym. He upheld the appeal from the same magistrate at [39]-[42]. It was upheld based on s. 52A of the Trade Practices Act and involved a security guard and a fried of Nina Gregurev. Such was the learned judge’s fair application to law as he found that the appellant was not danger to himself and the public as alleged by the Hyatt Hotel and its staff. The appellant had also cited a past decision of His Honourable Justice Bollen of the SA Supreme Court in an appeal of Deepak Bista that was a restraining order of the appellant against Mr. Bista. The appeal of Mr. Bista failed as he called the appellant mad when in fact he was not in 1995 (this decision is unreported). It was appeal made by the learned magistrate in Port Adelaide Magistrates Court, and the appellant’s psychiatrist had provided a report (Dr. Alan Cotton) indicating the appellant was not danger to himself and others. This occasion the learned judge erred in his discretion in applying to the erroneous and/or inadmissible facts the wrong legal rule. See Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 at 519. Thus, leave to appeal should be allowed. The exhibits “E” and “F” in the affidavit material before this Court clearly negates the hearsay evidence of Nina Gregurev be it sworn and unsworn that I never sent her alleged rape threat laden email to her “but for” the police.



In sum, from (i) to (viii) points shows that the appellant has reasonable cause of action and is arguable, and such the prospect of success in probably reasonable, and accordingly this court should grant leave to appeal in the interest of justice.



Another important error of law, fact and discretion that His Honourable Justice David made was to overlook the grounds of appeal this applicant/appellant had before him at [6] of the decision. The learned magistrate had erred in failing to provide as to the reasons why he had refused to issue subpoenas and order the police to provide discovery to the applicant/appellant. Thus, the learned appeal judge for an improper purpose totally ignored this appeal ground and additionally gave no adequate reason for his failure to do analysis. Another unreasonable ground of the learned judge to fail in consideration was also about the learned magistrate not adjourning the confirmation hearing.



Thus, in totality, the learned judge erred significantly and miscarriage of justice in terms of procedural fairness has occurred, and leave should be granted.



2. This is per ground (b) of the appeal (the judge erred in law in allowing the

introduction of hearsay evidence). His Honour overlooked the outline of

submission of the appellant before him and the learned magistrate. The appellant

had clearly argued the precedent known to him in Rana v University of South Australia (2004) FCA 559 at [40] relating to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The same case also involved allegation of rape by the psychotic Nina Gregurev and the appellant had been alleged in that university many things and to this date no police has convicted him about her allegations and/or the university ever took any action against him about her email related vexatious allegations. The learned judge did judicial analysis of both sworn and unsworn affidavits of Nina Gregurev, when it was not necessary in fact and law and only his erroneous discretion. The appellant’s argument that the unsworn affidavit was not known in law was not properly considered. The accepted evidence by the learned magistrate and the learned judge was scant and insufficient per Hasluck J in Smith v Vivian [2002] WASCA 227 (24 July 2002) at [47]-[58]. Thus, leave to appeal should be allowed. Furthermore, it was inadmissible in law. Significant miscarriage of justice has occurred or is occurring to the appellant or will occur to the appellant arising this known fact. See also Gleeson CJ in R v Frawley at 220 concerning the question of hearsay evidence. This is at [34] of R v Ramage [2004] VSC 391. They are related to hearsay evidence, statement of the mind of the accused at the relevant time and much more.



The learned judge erred significantly and miscarriage of justice in terms of procedural fairness has occurred, and leave should be granted.





3. This is ground (c) of the leave to appeal (erred in law in making the said order

while effectively acknowledging while making the order that there was no proper basis for it, and that as a matter of law it was not appropriate). His Honour Justice David is not being consistent with this matter and what he ruled in Rana v Hyatt Regency Hotel Ltd [2007] SASC dated 19/1/2007, which also involved Nina Gregurev and related Hyatt Gym (allegations of knife stabbing threat). He upheld the appeal from the same magistrate. Now, how is he saying that the appellant is a danger to the alleged victim with no reasonable and satisfactory evidence in law was just not there? What admissible evidence was there in making a justifiable future prediction that the appellant would be unless restrained would do all the kinds of things that the alleged victim alleges so that the threshold test would be met? This matter is not like Suter v Suter [2003] WASCA 169 (1 August 2003) at [13], which says, “Hearsay evidence13 It is submitted that his Worship erred in admitting evidence given by the respondent that the appellant had told her that he had been violent to a former wife. During the course of argument on the appeal, I accepted that, if such evidence had been given for the purpose of establishing its truth, that is, if it had been given in order to establish that the appellant had been violent to a former wife, the admission of the evidence was in error. The use made of that evidence by his Worship appears to have been twofold. On p 17 of the appeal book he refers to confirmation, apparently recently received by the respondent as to the appellant's conduct in the former marriage, as a factor tending to suggest that the fear, which she expressed, was "genuine and sincere". The question of the genuineness of the respondent's fear was not a central issue, which His Worship had to decide. Section 11 of the Restraining Orders Act requires the making of a prediction as to the future behaviour of a respondent to an application, which finding rests upon the satisfaction of the court, not upon any subjective fear of the applicant for the order and therefore assists in determining the issues which do arise under s 11 of the Restraining Orders Act. In my view, at that passage at p 17, his Worship was looking not to the question of whether such violent conduct had occurred in the previous marriage, but rather to the respondent's state of mind. Information which she had received, accurate or not, would be relevant and admissible for that purpose.”



There was no evidence before the learned judge or the magistrate that the appellant by his psychiatric and diabetes career has had convictions of violence or if any restraining orders exists, and as such would give any basis for the making of the order. This in terms of some reasonable hypothesis or evidence or any justifications. Thus, the Court should allow leave to appeal in this matter.



The learned judge erred significantly and miscarriage of justice in terms of procedural fairness has occurred, and leave should be granted.



4. This is per ground (d) of seeking leave to appeal (erred by comparing and contrasting the sworn affidavit by his motion and this was unfair and unreasonable to the appellant, as he had only been given access to the material just prior to the appeal hearing in Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal, concerning the appellant’s Veteran’s disability pension claims under subpoena of Australian Government Solicitors).



This ground is argued upon the basis that the appellant had only produced the sworn affidavit of Nina Gregurev that he obtained from the subpoena of the Australian Government Solicitors at AAT after 2/7/2008. The appellant had argued before the learned judge that this affidavit is being tendered to show how disadvantaged he would had been at confirmation hearing without knowing the existence of the sworn affidavit in terms of greater details consisting of further hearsay evidence and contrary to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The basis of the tendering the sworn affidavit was not for the learned judges own introduction of comparing and contrasting test to arrive at a conclusion whether it was prejudicial and probative to the forecasting of alleged danger to the alleged victim by the appellant based on his self confessed lunacy of paranoia etc.



The learned judge was unfair by his motion to apply the comparing and contrasting of the sworn and unsworn affidavits of Nina Gregurev for predicting the danger or harm or known or otherwise intimidation, harassment or stalking misconduct or any such items that may or likely occur in the future were contained in the materials for reasonable use of making of the confirmation order by the learned magistrate or the learned judge. This aspect of new parameter being introduced in the appeal was impermissible in law at the de novo hearing. Why?

Because, it was unfair and unreasonable to the appellant. See Minister of Immigration and Ethnic affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611.



Overall, the decision of the learned judge was unreasonable in not considering s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The appellant also notes that in Rana v Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd in this Court and file number 1383 of 2006, His Honorable Justice Anderson and the Full Court above him rejected this appellant’s ground of s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as not being applicable in this Court. The reason advanced by His Honorable Justice Anderson in the hearing was that: “Under s. 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), the laws of each state or territory including the laws relating to procedure, evidence, and the competency of witnesses are binding on all courts exercising federal jurisdiction in that state or territory (except or otherwise provided by the Constitution or the laws of the Commonwealth). The effect of this is that the courts of the states and territories, when exercising federal jurisdiction, apply the law of the state or territory rather than the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), except for those provisions that have a wider reach.” See at [24] of my affidavit before this Court.



The appellant argues that the learned judge erred in fact and law and in discretion in not applying s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in this matter as it covered the deed of settlement that was done by the Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia. Further, the appellant argues that ss. 5 and 182 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) covers the deed of settlement as being as certain documents. The appellant’s deeds per SAD 67 of 2004 were signed in Federal Court of Australia in Adelaide as mediated by the Court Registrar at the orders of Lander J. Thus, it is Commonwealth document and the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is extended to cover it in all proceedings in all Australian Courts like this Court.



However, the appellant argues that Nina Gregurev comments receiving of deed of settlements that I have had with various Universities. I had also provided in my fresh evidence to the learned judge a Website maintained by Nina Gregurev’s mother and linked those deeds (and appears at [9] of the judgment and page 6, which says, “sent the alleged victim a copy of a confidential “deed of settlement” in relation to court proceedings he had instituted in 2006; and….”). The appellant denies these documents that he sent personally to Nina Gregurev. In fact, it was stolen by Nina Gregurev from the appellant after the appellant had signed it concerning several Federal Court related actions in SAD 67 of 2004.



Most of the materials in the unsworn affidavit of Nina Greguev was contrary to s. 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Reasonable notice was not provided to this appellant by the police in writing where it intended to adduce hearsay evidence. See s. 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Further, there was exception to the common law hearsay rule like contemporaneous narrative statements of Nina Gregurev to police about her allegations of stalking by the appellant in 1996/7 (see at [9] of the judgment of David J). Further, statutory exceptions apply that mattered Nina Gregurev’s allegations of the appellant misuse of computers, emails and the internet evidence (see at [9] of the judgment of David J). For these matters see Evidence Act 1929 (SA) in s. 45A (computer evidence). None of these were properly considered by the learned judge.

The appellant thus argues that leave should be granted to him, as the learned judge “in public interest” and “in the interest of justice” did not properly consider the retention of an exclusionary rule for hearsay evidence, which was justified on the following grounds:



• Out of court statements are usually not on oath;

• There is usually an absence of testing by cross-examination;

• The evidence might not be the best evidence;

• There are dangers of inaccuracy in repetition;

• There is risk of fabrication;

• To admit hearsay evidence can add to the time and cost of litigation; and

• To admit hearsay evidence can unfairly catch the opposing party by surprise. See Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 38 (1987) at [126].



The learned judge did not believe the appellant that s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) equivalent exists in the rules of most federal, state and territory jurisdictions (which include a similar provision). See J Heydon, Cross on Evidence (7th ed, 2004), [33840].



The learned judge overlooked about the failure by the police to give notice where hearsay evidence was to be adduced in the confirmation hearing date per s. 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). There were factors per s. 192 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) for the confirmation hearing to be adjourned as the police were relying on hearsay evidence and the magistrate did not allowed the appellant to seek discovery and to issue subpoena on witnesses. See Evidence Regulations 1995 (Cth) r 5; Federal Court Rules (Cth) O 33 r 16. The specifics are:



(i) The paragraph 14 of the sworn affidavit of the alleged victim, and similar related paragraph of the unsworn affidavit of the alleged victim. Which says, “14. On Wednesday 25th October 2006, I attended ELIZABETH Police Station and spoke with a senior Constable PEPPER who advised me that I was supposed to have written a document to Sky City Casino. The ancillary report number is 06/Y63112. This letter states that I am partner of RANJIT RANA and that he is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. It goes on to say that a psychiatrist of RANA has said that he is worried RANA is drinking too much and that he is extremely dangerous and homicidal. The letter was signed by myself at the bottom of the letter with my mothers current telephone number underneath. I have never written any documents to the Sky City Casino at any time.” The police had stated (to me in the last time I appeared at Elizabeth Magistrates Court) that they were not going to call this Officer Pepper as a witness in support of the hearsay evidence of Nina Gregurev.

(ii) Again, at paragraph 20 of the sworn affidavit of Nina Gregurev says, On 21st December 2007, I received a telephone call from police officer advising us that police had received an email from RANA that he intended to rape me. As a result, I have been extremely scared and frightened and my mother has been staying at my house a lot more frequently.” The police again told me last time I appeared before the Elizabeth Magistrates Court that they would not be calling this unidentified Police Officer.



(iii) Both paragraphs appear in exhibit “A” of my affidavit now before this Court. Contrary to the matter being adjourned by the magistrate, as he found the alleged victim was truthful and predictable on what he saw and heard, and it did not matter whether I was given nay hearsay evidence, as they were relevant in the limited circumstances. The alleged victim was present for being cross-examined. The appellant was not there because justice was not going to be served as he was going to be restrained, as he had as alleged to be proven to have done things to a sister of a serving Police Officer.



(iv) Overall, the learned judge indicated that the appellant’s exhibits before him supported the fear mentioned in the two affidavits of Nina Gregurev be they sworn or unsworn, eithether before him or the learned magistrate. It did not matter whether the psychotic Nina Gregurev thought the appellant was Indian rapist that she alleged in her narrative to police in 1996/97 when she alleged the appellant had stalked her. However, this is contrary to Rana v Chief of Army [2006] FCAFC 63 at [8] misled the court by indicating that “adjustment order with mixed emotional features was not established during Mr. Rana’s Army service.” This is contrary to at [104] of Mr R v Commonwealth of Australia (1988) S.86/207 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision. Further, at [97]-[105]. Also, at, [38] of SAN and COMCARE [2004] AATA the appellant was suffering from ‘reactive anxiety depression’.



The learned judge erred significantly and miscarriage of justice in terms of procedural fairness has occurred, and leave should be granted.





5. Ground (e). erred by not properly considering at [3] and [7] of the judgment that the learned magistrate had provided him no reasons for the decision that he made in the judicial process. This constituted an error of law, as it served to make it difficult or perhaps impossible to determine whether the decision was based on an error of law, and whether the magistrate ought to have adjourned the matter for another day. This aspect the learned judge improperly overlooked the critical issues of law and fact.”



Failure to give reasons for decision. The general rule a court ought to give reasons for its decision and there is no evidence that to support the learned judge that the magistrate did make out one, and further it did not matter as he approached the matter for an improper purpose. See Donovan v Edwards [1922] VLR 87 at 88 per Irvine CJ. The giving of reasons serves at least three purposes: it enables the parties to see the extent to which their arguments have been understood and accepted and the basis of the decision, it furthers judicial accountability, and it affords a basis for predicting how like cases might be decided in future. See Soulemezis v Dudley (holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NWSLR 247 at 279 per McHugh CJ. See also Sun Alliance insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VR at 19 per Gray J, SC(VIC), Full Court. The appellant argues that as there was no reason and the learned judge hearing de novo used his own powers to cover the ground of no reasons given by the magistrate to confirm the hearing as being sound regardless the presence of significant inadmissible evidence containing hearsay evidence and contrary to any known law as set out above. I am concerned about the learned magistrate not issuing subpoena on Nina Gregurev’s criminal records for extortion of money to other older men, and also about her psychiatric psychotic condition related involuntary detention in various hospitals. He told me before that I have a history of stalking her and failed to give reasons for my justification to appeal.



The matter before the magistrate did not turned upon a finding in relation to a single and simple question of fact, or where the case was so conducted that the reasons for the decision was obvious. See Brittingham v Williams [1932] VLR 237 at 239 per Cussen ACJ. For example, the learned magistrate did not give any reasons as to why he would not issue subpoena concerning the police led forced detention of Nina Gregurev in 1991 at Woodleigh House, Modbury Hospital under the SA Mental Health Act in her attempt to kill her mother Darda Greguev with a knife. The magistrate told the appellant that he did not think appropriate about the state of mind Nina Gregurev and her diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder related psychosis and paranoia. He deemed that, as there were narratives in the allegation that the appellant had stalked and made threats of rape, no subpoena and discovery would be made about Nina Gregurev’s police criminal records involving similar history of false allegations of rape, stalking and harm to her by alleged Indian men in her police records, and he would use his discretion under known therapeutic and preventive jurisdictions in the best interest of Nina Gregurev. However, he did not provide any written reasons as how he came to know about it and the learned judge did not consider such evidence if it existed in the files before him.



The duty to state reasons will ordinary exist in relation to a decision made in the exercise of discretion as, for example, to dismiss a proceeding for want of prosecution. In fact, the last time the appellant had appeared before the learned magistrate, the appellant had challenged his jurisdiction and raised the ground of want of prosecution in lieu of the police failure to convict the appellant in 1996/97 for the charges of stalking Nina Gregurev. See Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER 119, CA. This case was like the cited precedent, where there may not be need for reasons in procedural interlocutory matters, for example an adjournment, where normally an appeal would not be contemplated. See also, Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 at 386 per Mahoney JA, CA(NSW).



The learned magistrate and the learned judge in determining whether in this case there is a duty to give reasons by the learned magistrate in the confirmation hearing, and the extent of that duty, regard should be had to the function to be served by giving of reasons. See Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 at 386 per Mahoney JA, CA(NSW) and Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER 119, CA. Where the decision constitutes a final order, the case must be exceptional for a judge not to be required to state reasons apart from saying informally that Nina Gregurev had privilege under rape shield laws and she was sister of a well known serving police officer. The appellant was dragged from city to Elizabeth a place he ever had visited or known apart that Nina’s brother lived near by and worked near by (that was what the learned magistrate said being the special arrangements for the day). The magistrate had indicated that there would be no appeal informally, and the right of appeal was forfeited by the appellant being a bankrupt. Thus, unless the basis of the learned magistrate was properly articulated, the right of the appellant was effectively lost as the learned judge had to second best guess it and make a confirmation order by dismissing the appeal in the de novo hearing, which was unfair to the appellant and was also unreasonable.



The reason for decision of the magistrate did not be lengthy or elaborate. See Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NWSLR 247 at 280 per McHugh JA, CA(NSW). They should be given only so far as is necessary to indicate why the decision was made and to allow the parties to exercise such rights as may be available to them in respect of it. See Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 at 386 per Mahoney JA. Reasons should apprise the parties of the broad outline and constituent facts of the reasoning on which the judge has acted: Soulemezis v Dudley (holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NWSLR 247 at 273 per McHugh JA, CA(NSW). It is an incident of judicial duty for the judge to consider all evidence in the case, and the failure of the judge to refer to evidence critical to an issue required to be decided may indicate that the duty has not been discharged. See Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 at 728. In the case of a decision made in the exercise of discretion, where reasons are required, they should show the principles according to which the discretion was exercised and what lead the judge to the decision: Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER 119, CA.



Reasons that are more elaborate are required where there is a right of appeal than where no appeal lies. See Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NWSLR 247 at 280 per McHugh JA, CA(NSW). In the former case, unless the basis of the decision is properly articulated, the right of the appellant was effectively lost. See Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NWSLR 247 at 280 per McHugh JA, CA(NSW). The reasons should be sufficient to enable the right of appeal to be exercised. See Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NWSLR 247 at 269 per McHugh JA, CA(NSW). The learned appeal judge did not understand the reasoning upon which the decision was based. See Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 at 388 per Moffit JA, CA(NSW).



The appeal judge overlooked effect of failure to give reasons of the magistrate, and he fell into error by his second guessing approach, which was unreasonable. The learned judge simply indicated that two affidavits were given to him for an assessment whether the unsworn one would prejudice the appellant, which was erroneously inferred and not supported by evidence, and the learned judge overlooked the appellant’s submission of s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and/or similar provisions in SA Supreme Court and SA Magistrates Court based rules. The learned judge did not do proper judicial analysis by overlooking this interlocutory hearing hearsay rule, and has fallen into factual and/or jurisdictional error. The learned judge knew that the learned magistrate had not provided adequate reasons for the dismissal of the matter. He could had adjourn the matter as a procedural fairness to the appellant. The learned magistrate improperly used case flow management principles by agreeing with the request of the police prosecutor whose affidavit was also inadmissible. The learned judge erred in law and fact by approving the affidavits relied by the learned magistrate below and the same police prosecutor’s affidavit, which was inadmissible arising s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) or similar provisions of court rules in SA Supreme Court or SA Magistrates Court.



Failure of a court to give reason for its decision when reasons ought to be given is an error in the judicial process. It constitutes an error of law. See Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376. Although the error does not establish that the decision itself involved some error, it serves to make it difficult or perhaps impossible to determine whether the decision was based on an error of law. See Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 at 389 per Moffit JA, CA(NSW). This Court should grant the appellant leave to appeal on this ground for the magistrate for not having given reasons and the learned judge to having overlooked at it and second best guessed it. The appellate court should order a new trial, or remit the proceeding to the judge for delivery of reasons. See De Iacovo v Lacandale [1957] VR 553; Apps v Pilet (1987) 11 NSW 350.



The appellant argues that the learned judge was not provided the medical report of his physician to link his diabetes and paranoid schizophrenia as a danger to himself and the society. It had no way any probative material to link paranoid schizophrenia as to how Nina Gregurev would be harmed by me on the balance of probabilities in near future. Further, the learned judge linked with paragraphs of Nina Gregurev’s sworn and unsworn affidavits, which contained allegations that she did not write the letter to Sky city Casino that she was my partner that was apparently shown to her from the police database. That is hearsay evidence (the magistrate refused issue subpoena for this police to be cross-examined). This material was not probative whatsoever how I may have been or will be a danger to Miss Gregurev. It is a well-known fact that my name appears in papers as I am seeking compensation from Australian Army for a long time for aggravation of paranoid schizophrenia.



The appellant is providing this Court various emails that someone has sent to harm me like to Deakin University, SA Police, University of South Australia and so on in order to prove there was just no direct or indirect or circumstantial evidence to show my intention to harm Nina Gregurev on 21/12/2007. The learned judge erred in inferring that there was sufficient evidence before the magistrate that the police warning to Nina was highly probative, and by my filing, an email that I received it tied my intention as such as warned by SA Police to Nina Gregurev on 21/12/2007.



This is unfair and unreasonable to me for the improper dismissal of the appeal. Why was the Police contacted by Deakin University after they received email from Nina Gregurev with the same sets of content and context sent by Nina Gregurev? All of these details will be linked orally in the hearing date concerning the fresh evidence “in the interest of justice” as fraud or deception of the SA Police intelligence is concerned to harm me as an ongoing vendetta. The learned judge did not properly consider my argument that the last exhibit in my affidavit before this Court, an affidavit of the Police Prosecutor Gregory John Hill dated 30 July 2008 was contrary to section 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).



The learned judge just overlooked it by declaring to be useful for his total assessment in the scheme of things arising seriatim, and orderly manner. I did not and will not agree with the paragraph 2d and e of the affidavit of Gregory John Hill. I do not recall of attending on 14/3/2008. I was not allowed to subpoena and get discovery on 29/2/2008. I deny all the allegations of Nina Gregurev in her sworn and unsworn affidavits. I am including reports of my psychiatrists and diabetic expert and they do not express in any way I am harm to self or others. I was showing as to how difficult it was for me to travel in public transport as I do not drive, and go all the way to Elizabeth arising my diabetes relating frequent symptoms of need to urinate and also do finger pricks with needle to check my blood sugar level. All events had occurred in city and special arrangement was made to cause me extreme hardship.



The learned judge erred significantly and miscarriage of justice in terms of procedural fairness has occurred, and leave should be granted.



Conclusion

The appellant argues that there is reasonable prospect of success for the appeal to succeed. This is based per the test related criterion have been met. The decision is manifestly unreasonable and is very doubtful as raised by all of the grounds above. If it is allowed to stand then the appellant will suffer significant miscarriage of justice, and in future grave police related brutality to the best interest of the appellant would occur or is occurring or likely to occur.



Date:









-----------------------------------

Appellant Ranjit Rana

To find a book, click below:



Search















































Books about Himalayan Religion

from Pilgrims Publishing, Varanasi, India and Pilgrims Book House, Kathmandu, Nepal.





Click here for books on related topics:



Dalai Lama

Tibetan Buddhism





The Arrow and the Spindle



by Samten G Karmay



Studies in history, myths, rituals, and beliefs in Tibet.



Hardcover. 600 pages. B&W illustrations. Index.

Weight: 700 g (24.5 oz).

Item No: N000020137.

Price: $US17.25. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





Buddhism and Lamaism



by J E Ellam



Buddhism and Lamaism gives a brief account of the origin of Buddhism, the specific teachings of the Buddha Gautama Sakyamuni and Lamaism. The author examines the historical links between Buddhism and Lamaism, and explores how, at a later stage, witchcraft and magic emerged and departed in many ways from the comparative simplicity of the Buddha's teachings.



Ellam also underlines the contradictions between Tibetan beliefs and those of other Buddhist countries. He goes into the esoteric aspects of the mystical Mahayana teachings, so long concealed from outsiders by suspicion and brute force. The book is based on a first-hand study of the subject which extended over many years, first in the Southern Buddhist countries, and then in Tibet itself.



Paperback. 49 pages.

Weight: 50 g (1.8 oz).

Item No: 81-7769-014-0.

Price: $US 1.00. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





The Enchanted World of KUMARI



by John Mellowship



The book focuses on the traditional worship of Kumari by the King of Nepal. This worship is described as a dramatic performance, which acts out an ideal of perfect relations between a Hindu ruler and the citizens of the state.



The work will interest Nepalese studying their traditional culture, scholars in the field, and those who wish to discover the deeper meanings behind the display of regal splendour presented by the small girl called the 'Living Goddess'.



The author, John Mellowship, was born at Nuneaton, England into the family of an Australian Anglican priest. Originally intended for the priesthood, he retains a deep interest in spiritual matters. The family returned to Australia where he later began to study social anthropology at the University of Adelaide.



The University's Anthropology department organized a visit to Nepal where John chose the Royal Kumari as his special topic for doctoral study. In 1990/91 he spent a year doing fieldwork in Nepal and since then has steadily refined his understanding of the Kumari institution.



Paperback. 233 pages.

Weight: 300 g (10.5 oz).

Item No: 817769605X.

Price: $US 5.75. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





Faith Healers in the Himalaya



by Father Casper J Miller



Cover Photograph by Michael Oppitz:

Shaman Beth Bahadur Bahadur, Takasera WC Nepal, 1978



This book is a reprint of a long out-of-print classic anthropological study of the shamans of Nepal. With the introduction of western medicine and so-called modern amenities, this is a fascinating account of a traditional way of life that is slowly disappearing in the Himalayan kingdom.



Spirit possession, magic, witchcraft and occult healing ceremonies are still daily realities in the villages of Nepal. Who are the people who deal with these realities on behalf of afflicted members of the community? This absorbing in-depth study reveals the amazing secrets of traditional Himalayan shamans (known locally as "jhankris") and their clients in the Dolakha district, a remote mountainous region of Nepal inhabited by the Thami people.



Although initially describing Nepalese shamans or spirit masters in anthropological terms, author Cap Miller presents these spirit masters in dramatic action, beginning with their roles in an annual "Pilgrimage for Power" to a sacred mountain top, the scene of magical battles.



Paperback. 287 pages.

Weight: 485 g (17 oz).

Item No: 81-7303-052-9.

Price: $US10.50. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART







The Glory of Nepal: A Mythological Guidebook to Kathmandu Valley, based on the Nepala-Mahatmya and Himavatkhanda



by William P Forbes with ijay Kumar Chaube. Illustrated by Raju Babu Shakya 'SARAB'.



This beautifully produced paperback contains nine stories from the Himavatkhanda and Nepal-Mahatmya, translated from the Sanskrit. The book is profusely illustrated.

Some of the questions that the books asks are:

- Why are the Himalaya considered holy?

- Why were so many temples constructed in the Himalayan kingdom?

- What are the origins of religious beliefs?

The author has answered these questions intelligently for the modern reader. Most books about the Himalaya agree that they are holy, but noever tell you the origins of this belief. Writers often highlight aspects and features of various temples, but rarely explain why the temples were constructed. Forbes' book is a true pilgrims guide to the holy places of the Kathmandu Valley. It reveals the role that the gods themselves played in establishing this sacred site. Complete with maps and concise directions, these stories lead us on an imaginative but authentic journey of discovery.

"My impression is that the work in hand has its own significance in the annals of Puranic publications." -- Hem Raj Gyawali, Kantipur Publications

"This is certainly not a small task. Only by extreme zeal, devotion and effort can such a work be accomplished." -- Dr. Govind Tandon



Paperback. 292 pages. B&W drawings. Fold-out map.

Weight: 400 g (14 oz).

Item No: 81-7769-027-2.

Price: $US 4.50. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





Himalayan Pantheon: A Guide to the Gods and Goddesses of Nepal



by Daniel B Haber



Visitors to Nepal, particularly Westerners, may find the large pantheon of gods and goddesses worshipped in this tiny Himalayan country by Hindus, Buddhists and animists bewildering. This small book is a pocket guide to the predominant religious iconography in the Himalayan kingdom and the temples and festivals associated with them. Some people may be put off by what they consider to be the vast number of "idols" and bloody sacrifices, while others may be seduced by the exoticism of it all. Without making any cultural value judgements, the present work attempts to identify and explain the chief deities worshipped in Nepal.



Some highlights:

- Who is the prepubescent "living goddess" and why is she worshipped?

- Who are the phallic deities worshipped for fertility?

- Which are the horrific deities offered animal sacrifices?

- Who is the goddess that bestows good luck? The goddess that bestows knowledge, whose symbol is the six-pointed star?

- What is a Bodhisattva?



These are some of the topics covered in this little book. Although Nepal is nominally a Hindu kingdom, those coming from India may find Nepal's religious iconography quite different from its southern neighbour.



Paperback. 42 pages. B&W drawings.

Weight: 80 g (2.8 oz).

Item No: 81-7303-125-8.

Price: $US2.25. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





Kumari: The Virgin Goddess



by Siddhi B Ranjitkar



Kumari Puja, or virgin worship, is an ancient feature of Asian religions, dating back to at least the late Vedic period. Archaeological evidence indicates that mother goddess have always occupied a very significant position even in the religions of such ancient civilisations as the Mohenjo-daro and Harappa.

In Nepal, the Living Goddess, Kumari, is regarded as a supreme Tantric goddess--a common deity worshipped by both Hindus and Buddhists. While Hindu Tantrics worship her as Durga Bhawani or Taleju, Buddhist Tantrics worship her as Vajradevi. According to a popular belief, Kumari possesses unlimited spiritual powers and protects people from demons and evil spirits.

The Newars of Nepal devote a great deal of their devotion and ritual activity to the worship of female divine force in its multifarious forms but the most notable and unique feature of their religion is the worship of Kumari, the living virgin goddess.

This handy, concise book presents the mysterious phenomenon of the Living Goddess.

"An invaluable introduction to one of Nepal's most fascinating subjects" -- John Fredericks



Paperback. 48 pages.

Weight: 45 g (1.6 oz).

Item No: 81-7303-165-7.

Price: $US 2.50. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART







The Pashupatinath: A Multi-dimensional Observation on Shaivism, Pashupati Cult and the Pashupatinath



by Sanu Bhai Dangol



A detailed description of the mystery, legends, priesthood, worship, tantrism and significance of the Pashupatinath temple complex near Kathmandu. It is accompanied by a discussion of Shaivism and the Pashupati cult, including: the history of the Shaiva tradition, the significance of lingam worship, the influence of Buddhism, and the branches of Shaivism today. An appendix of popular hymns on Shaivism (in Sanskrit with English translations) is attached.



Paperback. 77 pages. B&W photographs.

Weight: 140 g (4.9 oz).

Item No: N000005038.

Price: $US4.00. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART







Power Places of Kathmandu: Hindu and Buddist Holy Sites in the Sacred Valley of Nepal



Photographs by Kevin Bubriski. Text by Keith Dowman



Around the city of Kathmandu, the ancient traditions of goddess worship, animism and shamanism have for centuries coexisted with the high cultures of Buddhism and Hinduism to create a religious culture of rich diversity and complexity. The power places in the valley range from simple unhewn rocks and boulders revered since ancient times, to impressive pagoda temples replete with stone, wood and bronze ornament and sculpture. These special places, where spiritual energies mingle with the affairs of the earth, have been the meeting points for thousands of devout pilgrims from different traditions throughout the ages.



Power Places of Kathmandu gives an unprecedented view of these fabled sites, with 19 of the most important locations illustrated in over 100 magnificient color plates. Describing each site in turn, in an order which mirrors the routes used by pilgrims through the three old Kingdoms of Nepal, Keith Dowman explores the diverse religious traditions and spiritual practices that have given rise to these places of worship, and examines the rich artistic heritage that is inextricably linked with them.



"Collaboration of two eminently-qualified authorities: rich color photographs accompanied by well-researched text." -- David Reed, Nepal (Rough Guides)





Hardback. 130 pages. 100 colour photographs. Glossary.

Weight: 1360 g (47.6 oz).

Item No: 0500541930.

Price: $US40.00. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART









The Religion of Tibet



by Sir Charles Bell



This classic volume by Sir Charles Bell begins with an overview of religion in Tibet before the advent of Buddhism. After familiarising the reader with the pre-Buddhist Bon religion, he describes the foundation of Buddhism in India by Gotama the Buddha. He details the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet and depicts the struggle between Bon and Indian Buddhism, the result being Tibetan Buddhism.



This work is an excellent introduction to Tibetan Buddhism for newcomers and provides many new insights for those who are already familiar with this religion.



Bell's knowledge of the subject is vast and carefully presented. During his nineteen year stay in Tibet, the author consulted unknown Chinese and Tibetan sources, in addition to the known works on Tibet. He had the opportunity to consult the most authoritative people in Tibet regarding his subject. The result of his labour is this wonderful book.



Paperback. 184 pages.

Weight: 220 g (7.7 oz).

Item No: 81-7303-081-2.

Price: $US4.75. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





The Tibetan Book of the Dead, or the After-Death Experiences on the Bardo Plane



by W Y Evans-Wentz. Lama Kazi Dawa-Sandup, tr.



"According to tradition, this key text for an understanding of Tibetan Buddhism dates to the time of Padma Sambhava himself and was later hidden until the time was ripe for it to be revealed. It describes the processes of death, of existence after death and of rebirth, which are fundamental to Tibetan Buddhist belief and which are of almost equal interest to Western psychologists and theologians. The text can be used as a breviary and read on the occasion of death, but it was also intended to serve as a guide to the living as well as the dying. The introduction by Evans-Wentz is itself an important commentary on both the text itself and the doctrines it embodies." - John Pinfold, Tibet (Clio Press)



Paperback. 248 pages. B&W photographs and drawings.

Weight: 360 g (12.6 oz).

Item No: 81-7624-055-9.

Price: $US 6.75. . Convert Currency

THIS BOOK TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE





The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, or the Method Realizing Nirvana through Knowing the Mind



by W Y Evans-Wentz



"Like the Tibetan Book of the Dead, this key text for the understanding of Tibetan Buddhism dates back to the time of Padma Sambhava, who may himself have been its author. It sets forth the essence of Mahayana Buddhism, and in this edition is accompanied by the biography of Padma Sambhava. The lengthy and scholarly introduction by Evans-Wentz is again an important commentary on the text itself and the doctrine it contains." - John Pinfold, Tibet (Clio Press)



Paperback. 261 pages. B&W photographs.

Weight: 420 g (14.7 oz).

Item No: 8177690264.

Price: $US 6.95. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





Tibetan Religious Dances: Tibetan Text and Annotated Translation of the 'Chams Yig



by Rene de Nebewsky-Wojkowitz



This unique work presents invaluable material related to the Tibetan sacred dances, which have met their doom with the destruction of monastic life in Tibet. Nebewsky-Wojkowitz, during several periods of fieldwork in the Himalayas, studied these Buddhist temple dances. He brings to their description his expert knowledge of Tibetan iconography and ritual. Of particular interest is his translation of the Tibetan texts containing detailed instructions for the performance of the dances.

The existence of such choreographical manuals explains the uniformity in the performance of temple dances and the persistence of an unchanging tradition over long periods. Realising that none of the Buddhist rituals referred to in this book can be performed in present-day Tibet and with the rapid decline in the art of the "chams" dances, Dr de Nebewsky-Wojkowitz's work becomes all the more valuable.



"Written before the flight to India of the Dalai Lama in 1959 and left uncompleted at the author's death, this is a detailed description and analysis of Tibetan ritual dances from the Bon period onwards, based on both textual evidence and fieldwork. Of particular interest is the translation of the texts which include detailed choreographic instructions for the performance of the dances. The appendix by Walter Graf is concerned with the performance of Tibetan music and annotations." - John Whelpton, Tibet (Clio Press)



Paperback. 319 pages. B&W photographs; musical diagrams; map.

Weight: 600 g (21 oz).

Item No: 81-7769-506-1.

Price: $US 16.00. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART





Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines, or Seven Books of Wisdom of the Great Path



Edited by W Y Evans-Wentz. Lama Kazi Dawa-Sandup, tr.



"Seven authentic Tibetan yoga texts, almost unknown to the occidental world until their first publication in English in 1935, are now available in this paperback edition. A companion to the unique Tibetan Book of the Dead which the late Dr. Evans-Wentz also edited, this volume illustrated with photographs and reproductions of yoga paintings and manuscripts, contains some of the principal meditations used by illustrious Hindu and Tibetan gurus and philosophers through the ages in attaining Right Knowledge and Enlightenment.



The editor, whose inquiry and research extended through more than fifteen years in the Orient, spent much time as a pupil of Hindu sages and Buddhist lamas. He has included a body of orally transmitted tradition and teachings received at first hand. These will be of particular interest to anthropologists and psychologists, and to students of comparative religion and practically applied Mahayana Yoga. Special commentaries precede each carefully rendered text, and a comprehensive preface contrasts the tenets of Buddhism with European concepts of religion, philosophy, and science.



Yoga, the tap root of Hinduism, Jainism, Zen Buddhism, and Taoism, has also influenced the development of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. These seven distinct but intimately related books, arranged in orderly sequence, afford a comprehensive view of the spiritual teachings which have shaped the culture of the Orient, and which are now increasingly enriching the West's appreciation of the depths of the human psyche.



The late W. Y. Evans-Wentz, formerly of Jesus College, Oxford, is also the editor of The Tibetan Book of the Dead, The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, and Tibet's Great Yogi, Milarepa. His substantial tetralogy of works on yoga, based on translations from the Tibetan, offers an 'interpretation from within' rarely found in the works of Western scholars. During the early years of this century Dr. Evans-Wentz lived in India and in Sikkim, at the invitation of the Maharaja Sidkyong Tulku, where he studied occult doctrines intensively." - OUP



Paperback. 389 pages. B&W photographs.

Weight: 360 g (12.6 oz).

Item No: 817769068X

Price: $US 5.50. . Convert Currency



ADD TO SHOPPING CART











Home
Browse Books
New Titles
Bargains
Antiquarian
Videos



© 1998-2008, Pilgrims Book House & Pilgrims Publishing

FINE BOOKS ON NEPAL, TIBET, HIMALAYAS AND INDIA

PO Box 3872, Kathmandu, Nepal. Tel: 977-1-4700942. Fax: 977-1-4700943.

Email: pilgrims@wlink.com.np

.