The assessment of whether proceedings have been 'frequently' instituted or conducted under s 8(1)(a) of the VP Act is not merely arithmetic; courts must consider the interrelationship between proceedings, avoid double-counting, and distinguish between proceedings commenced by the person and criminal proceedings brought against them. The first instance authorities holding that s 6(d) does not require subjective intent (Pascoe v Liprini; Altaranesi) have been questioned by the NSWCA and should not be relied upon without further consideration. The question whether the VP Act applies to the conduct of criminal proceedings by an accused person remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 50 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 50 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.