FORMAL RESPONSE TO BENJAMIN WICKHAM
Subject: Formal Complaint – Restrictions on Court Communications, Procedural Fairness, Outstanding Evidence and Alleged Administrative Misconduct
To: Benjamin Wickham, Chief Executive Officer, ACT Courts and Tribunal
Date: 21 October 2026
Dear Mr Wickham,
I acknowledge your correspondence dated 20 October 2026.
Your response is profoundly disappointing.
After years of attempting to obtain evidence, challenge allegations affecting my reputation, secure access to court processes and obtain meaningful responses to serious complaints, I receive a letter focused almost exclusively on my language.
You have identified the manner in which I have expressed my frustration. You have not adequately addressed the circumstances that gave rise to it.
I do not accept that my use of offensive language provides your organisation with a legitimate basis to disregard substantive complaints, refuse access to information or obstruct my ability to participate in legal proceedings.
Nor do I accept that an administrative communication restriction should operate as a mechanism for avoiding scrutiny of the conduct of ACT Courts and Tribunal personnel.
I require a substantive response to the following matters.
1. My language does not extinguish my legal rights
Your correspondence reproduces numerous statements from my previous communications.
I acknowledge that some of those statements contain offensive language. I also recognise that threats of violence are unacceptable.
However, the existence of inappropriate language does not resolve the underlying complaints.
My concerns include alleged procedural unfairness, difficulties obtaining evidence, restrictions on my participation in hearings, the handling of medical information and failures to provide adequate explanations for administrative decisions.
These matters must be assessed according to their substance.
An offensive complaint can still raise a legitimate legal issue.
I expect the Chief Executive Officer of a court administration to understand that distinction.
I therefore ask you to identify what substantive consideration has been given to my complaints, independently of the language used to express them.
2. Your proposed communication restrictions require explanation
You have directed that future correspondence concerning my proceedings be sent only to three designated addresses:
Supreme Court matters: appeals@courts.act.gov.au
Magistrates Court matters: MCRegistrar@courts.act.gov.au
ACAT matters: ACATAdminReview@act.gov.au
You further state that correspondence sent to other addresses will not be read or answered.
I request that you identify:
The statutory, regulatory or administrative authority relied upon to impose this restriction.
Whether the restriction constitutes a formal administrative decision.
Whether a written assessment was undertaken before it was imposed.
Whether my health circumstances and disability-related requests were considered.
Whether the restriction is indefinite.
What review or complaint mechanisms are available.
How urgent applications, evidence and correspondence subject to filing deadlines will be handled.
How I may communicate with a judicial associate where a court order or procedural direction requires it.
I recognise that court administrations may establish reasonable communication protocols.
However, such protocols must not prevent a litigant from filing documents, complying with court directions or exercising available review rights.
I require written confirmation that every properly submitted application, appeal, affidavit and item of evidence will continue to be processed according to law.
3. The ACT protection order proceedings
My concerns regarding PPO69/2026, Miller v Reeve, remain unresolved.
I dispute important factual allegations relied upon in those proceedings.
I have previously raised concerns about the treatment of subpoena requests, access to material, the opportunity to present evidence and the conduct of hearings.
I recognise that an adverse judicial decision does not itself establish misconduct.
Nevertheless, I am entitled to seek review of decisions through available legal procedures and to request explanations concerning administrative handling of documents.
I require confirmation of the following:
Which subpoena applications were accepted or rejected.
The reasons for any administrative rejection.
Whether all affidavits and supporting documents I submitted were placed on the court file.
Whether any evidence was excluded by judicial order.
Whether transcripts and recordings are available.
What procedure applies to obtaining documents necessary for an appeal.
I also request a complete account of any material that was submitted but not accepted for filing.
4. My complaints concerning Phillip Miller and Jonathan Dooley
I maintain that information supplied by Phillip Miller and Jonathan Dooley has contributed to serious damage to my professional reputation.
I dispute the accuracy of adverse allegations concerning me and seek an opportunity to examine the evidence supporting them.
I do not accept that professional status, previous employment relationships or personal connections establish the truth of allegations.
If material from either individual has been relied upon in proceedings concerning me, I seek access to that material through the applicable disclosure, inspection or subpoena procedures.
I also request identification of any restrictions that prevent me from accessing it.
I recognise that your administrative office cannot determine the truth of every disputed allegation.
However, it can explain how relevant documents have been handled and identify the appropriate procedural mechanisms for obtaining access.
5. The recordings and your allegations concerning publication
Your correspondence alleges that recordings appearing on a website associated with me were made or published without authorisation.
You further refer to section 98 of the Personal Violence Act 2016 (ACT).
I take the legal issues you have identified seriously.
However, I require clarification of the precise conduct alleged to breach the law.
In particular, please identify:
The specific recordings or publications concerned.
The court proceedings to which each recording relates.
The legislative provisions or orders said to prohibit recording or publication.
Whether any permission was sought or granted.
Whether the alleged breach concerns recording, publication, identification of participants or some combination of these.
Whether you contend that any publication restriction applies to material unrelated to personal violence proceedings.
I recognise that restrictions concerning the identification of parties in protection order proceedings may apply regardless of my disagreement with the proceedings.
I will seek appropriate legal advice concerning the publications identified in your letter.
I do not accept, however, that these publication concerns excuse the failure to address separate complaints about procedural fairness or administrative conduct.
6. My medical circumstances
I have repeatedly informed ACT institutions that my health has deteriorated significantly during these prolonged proceedings.
I have also requested adjustments to enable me to participate effectively from New Zealand.
My circumstances include prolonged disruption to my employment and substantial financial hardship.
I am presently dependent upon financial assistance from my elderly mother.
These matters are directly relevant to the practical arrangements required for my participation in proceedings.
I request confirmation that my medical information and requests for procedural adjustments have been properly recorded and referred to the relevant decision-makers.
I further request written reasons for any refusal of adjustments that I have sought.
7. ACAT proceedings and dismissal decisions
My concerns also extend to the handling of my ACAT proceedings, including DT18/2026 and DT44/2026.
In particular, I have sought explanations concerning:
The consideration of medical evidence.
Requests for adjournments.
Access to recordings and transcripts.
My ability to provide written submissions.
The consequences of non-attendance.
The handling of applications concerning procedural fairness.
I note that an order dated 13 October 2026 dismissed DT44/2026 following my non-attendance.
I dispute the fairness of that outcome and intend to pursue the available review procedures.
I request that your office identify the appropriate administrative contact for obtaining the complete record of correspondence and applications placed before the Tribunal prior to dismissal.
I am not asking you to overturn a Tribunal decision administratively.
I am asking for access to the records necessary to exercise my legal rights.
8. Your correspondence of 10 July 2026
I also refer to your earlier correspondence dated 10 July 2026 concerning my complaint of 31 May 2025.
I remain dissatisfied with the handling of that complaint.
I request that you identify the complaints assessment process undertaken, the documents considered and the reasons for the conclusions reached.
If any part of the complaint was referred to another decision-maker, please identify that referral.
If the complaint was closed without investigation, explain the basis for that decision.
9. Preservation of evidence
Given the continuing disputes concerning the handling of my proceedings, I formally request preservation of relevant administrative records.
These include:
Correspondence concerning my complaints and proceedings.
Records of decisions to accept or reject documents.
Communications concerning requests for transcripts and recordings.
Records of communication restrictions imposed upon me.
Internal records concerning my requests for disability-related adjustments.
Administrative communications relating to the handling of my applications and appeals.
I request confirmation of the applicable records retention arrangements and the process for seeking access to these materials.
10. Allegations of improper conduct and accountability
I have repeatedly alleged that ACT institutions have mishandled information, denied me meaningful opportunities to present evidence and failed to provide adequate responses to serious complaints.
I regard these matters as potentially involving serious maladministration and breaches of procedural obligations.
I also believe that some decisions have had the practical effect of protecting disputed allegations from scrutiny.
However, I distinguish those concerns from a finding that any individual has committed a criminal offence.
I am asking for the evidence necessary to determine whether misconduct occurred and, if so, who was responsible.
Where an administrative decision was lawful, I expect the legal basis to be identified.
Where an error occurred, I expect it to be acknowledged and corrected.
Where a complaint raises matters outside your authority, I expect an explanation of the appropriate review mechanism.
What I will not accept is an assumption that my complaints can be disregarded merely because my language has been confrontational.
11. Required response
I request a substantive written response addressing:
The legal basis and review mechanism for your communication restrictions.
Confirmation that my filing and appeal rights remain unaffected.
The status of my outstanding requests for evidence and court records.
The handling of my medical evidence and procedural adjustment requests.
The administrative records concerning PPO69/2026.
The appropriate procedures for accessing the ACAT records concerning DT18/2026 and DT44/2026.
The assessment undertaken in relation to my complaint of 31 May 2025.
The specific legal concerns raised about the recordings and publications identified in your correspondence.
The process for obtaining independent consideration of complaints concerning ACT Courts and Tribunal administration.
Please acknowledge receipt within seven days and provide a substantive response within 21 days, or identify the applicable statutory response periods.
12. Final position
Mr Wickham, I consider the treatment I have experienced from ACT institutions deeply troubling.
I have spent years attempting to defend my professional reputation, obtain access to evidence and secure a fair opportunity to present my case.
The personal and financial consequences have been severe.
I am entitled to criticise the administration of justice, challenge decisions through lawful processes and seek accountability for substantiated misconduct.
I will continue to exercise those rights.
I expect ACT Courts and Tribunal to distinguish between legitimate concerns about the tone of correspondence and its continuing obligations concerning procedural fairness, access to records and the administration of legal proceedings.
I request that this complaint be referred for independent consideration by an appropriate officer who has not been involved in the matters complained of.
I reserve my rights to pursue available review, complaint and legal remedies.
Yours sincerely,
Oliver James Reeve
New Zealand
