In R v Ryan [2024] NSWDC 476 the Court considered offences by a self-identified sovereign citizen.
The judgment states
The offender, Peter James Ryan, entered pleas of guilty at Coonamble Local Court on 19 March 2024 to two offences: the offence of Discharge Firearm with intent to resist arrest (sequence 4) pursuant to s33A(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900; and Possess Prohibited Firearm (.22 calibre self-loading rifle) (sequence 7) pursuant to s7(1) Firearms Act 1996. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 25 years and 14 years imprisonment, with standard non-parole periods of 9 years and 4 years respectively. When sentencing on sequence 7, the offender also asks that a further two offences be taken into account on a Form 1; being two offences of Possess unauthorised firearm pursuant to s7A(1) Firearms Act 1996. If for sentence, the maximum penalty would have been 5 years imprisonment.
The details of each of these offences, including those listed on the Form 1, are contained in the agreed facts. I have read the full facts and recite key parts. The offending relates to events which unfolded at the offender’s Binnaway property between the offender and police on 2 November 2022. Following attempts to arrest the offender in relation to a matter of intimidation, the offender, whose home was signposted with a plaque declaring it to be “sovereign land”, refused to leave his home and ordered police off his property. The offender stated, “You’re on sovereign ground, you will be neutralised if you fucking hurt me, or try and do anything to me”. When queried as to what he meant by “neutralised” the offender responded, “what the fuck do you think it means”. A twelve-hour siege ensued, during which police negotiators attended to attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. The police had been informed by a friend of the offender that the offender owned firearms. At about 6.30pm the standoff came to a head when four police officers approached the home, with Senior Constable Legge holding a ballistic shield and the other three officers, Senior Constable Churchill, Leading Senior Constable Tomlinson and Senior Constable Brownlee behind him and the shield. They approached the doorway and turned off the power. The offender said, “don’t do it”. From inside the house, the offender shot at police. The ballistic shield was struck causing a small hole roughly in the middle of the shield and a dent and knocking Senior Constable Legge backwards. This conduct supports the principal charge.
Negotiations continued for a further hour and a half and thereafter the offender exited the property into Police custody. The offender commented “It didn’t have to come to all of this. It was just a comment that everyone makes” and then he referred to having a mental breakdown and it being the anniversary of his son’s death. A search of the home was conducted, during which police located three firearms and rounds of ammunition. Each of the firearms had been rendered safe by the offender. The offender did not hold a licence or permit to possess firearms.
A .22 long rifle, being a prohibited firearm, supports the offence for sentence. A .303 bolt-action rifle and a .410 single shot shotgun support the offences on the Form 1. The damage to the ballistic shield was consistent with having been caused by the .303 rifle. ...
The offender’s first adult criminal offending occurred when he was 35 in 1999 and involved personal violence and firearm offences. He has further offending, mostly involving personal violence and firearms. The most serious penalty imposed was a conditional release order in 2021. The possession of unauthorised firearms is of concern given his similar possession for the index offending. He is a person who does not comply with the requirement to be licensed. A submission was made that the risk for further offending was limited as he would not be able to secure a licence and would be subject to a Firearms Prohibition Order. This would ensure he was under scrutiny for firearm possession but could not of itself ensure an inability to access firearms if required. His record, given the nature of previous offending and the association to the index offending, does not entitle him to leniency.
I observe the offender has not offended whilst on remand. There are no disciplinary violations. This is of particular note given the extended remand period of 23 months.
... The diagnosis proffered is one of PTSD and prolonged grief disorder. Both are said to have been occasioned after the death of his son.
Just less than a year before the offending the offender’s son committed suicide. Prior to his death his son had been engaged with government agencies regarding access to his daughter. This further fostered in the offender a distrust of the government. The offender already distrusted the government due to the COVID requirements and other irrational beliefs.
Some of his irrational beliefs concerned a belief persons intended to poison or kill him. He was involved in a long-standing dispute with his Local Council about rates and his inability to attend in person due to being unvaccinated.
The offender identified as a sovereign citizen from 2020. This informs the plaque on his gate. However, he adhered to the customs of the Court, and he recognised the right of the Court to sentence.
By the time the police attended, to attend to a legitimate arrest, the offender was socially isolated and suffering mental health issues. The case notes, tendered by both the prosecution and the defence, contain an insight into his disturbed thought processes. The indicia of disorder presents as diminishing with time. In the tendered psychological report, it is stated that he retains little interest in social interactions.
The earlier case notes include an opinion of paranoia and persecutory beliefs and a delusional disorder. Most of the beliefs are focussed on the government. In June 2023 he still referred to his intention to neutralise the authorities if they entered his land: Exhibit D, p3. By July 2023 a doctor excluded delusional disorder. The doctor noted continued sovereign beliefs were not delusional.
... The defence submitted the offender’s mental health has a direct bearing upon his moral culpability. It is submitted the operating factors include the contemporaneity to the death of his son, the circumstances surrounding and informing his distrust of government, his sovereign citizen beliefs and that he felt threatened when police attended including a belief the police would kill him and was in a heightened emotional state. It is further submitted that the trauma and grief, the distrust and paranoia and the social isolation inform the offending. In combination, these are said to lessen the offender’s moral culpability. I accept that his mental health issues were operating at the time of the offending and inform his conduct on the day leading up to his offending. I accept they operate to moderate his moral culpability.
... General deterrence is of significance when sentencing for any firearm offence and more so one involving a weapon being discharged. Of even greater significance is when the offence involves that firearm being discharged at a member of the Police Service.
The offender still maintains his sovereign beliefs. I accept the submission advanced on his behalf that it is non-mainstream but not akin to a terrorist organisation. It is however a belief system that caused issues for the offender in his interaction with others and endorsed irrational thoughts. The offender has not demonstrated remorse or real insight into his offending and what precipitated it. I consider personal deterrence has a continuing role to play.
In PH v State of South Australia [2024] SASC 113 concerning a writ of certiorari setting aside the decision of the Parole Board that PH be liable to serve the balance of his term of imprisonment the Court states.
... On 22 November 2022, the applicant was sentenced to two years and four months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 months for four firearms offences. ...
On 16 September 2021, police entered and searched a property at Lonsdale. The property was owned by a company of which, at that time, the applicant was the director, secretary and shareholder. The property comprised of 12 acres and a number of transportable homes, shipping containers and an Atco transportable hut were located on it. The applicant lived in the Atco transportable hut. In the applicant’s bedroom, inside a piano, police located various firearms and ammunition. At that time the applicant did not hold a firearms licence and the firearms were unregistered.
Although the applicant pleaded guilty, there was a factual dispute about how and when the firearms and ammunition came to be located inside of the piano. The applicant gave evidence and the sentencing Judge rejected the applicant’s account.
At the time of sentencing, the Judge discussed the applicant’s affiliation with a group called the Commonwealth Justice Assembly. He said:[2] You are what could be called the leader of a group known as the Commonwealth Justice Assembly which promotes a sovereign citizen ideology. The property on which the firearms and ammunition were located was used as the Assembly headquarters. The Assembly has a large number of members and you say up to about 100 people attend at the Lonsdale property for meetings each weekend. ...
... On 27/05/23 [the applicant] attended Christies Beach Police Station to report a breach of Intervention Order by [JM] (associate of Commonwealth Justice Assembly). [The applicant] has provided a signed affidavit to Police stating on 27/05/23 he attended the immediate vicinity of [the Lonsdale Property] (which is the former meeting place for Commonwealth Justice Assembly and residential address of [JM]) in order to serve an illegitimate summons which he had created and is not legally binding. [The applicant] was allegedly approached and threatened by [JM] in the street, which [the applicant] reports is in breach of an active Intervention Order. [The applicant] had earlier contacted the police call centre and requested a Standby breach of Peace to serve the summons at this address. It has since been established this ‘summons’ is illegitimate and would have amounted to an unnecessary waste of Police resources.
[The applicant] attempts to serve an illegitimate summons are deliberately provocative and may amount to a breach of his parole, by failing to keep the peace towards any person.
[The applicant’s] attendance in the immediate vicinity of [the Lonsdale Property] which is occupied by [JM] and former meeting place for Commonwealth Justice Assembly which is frequented by members/associates. This also may amount to a breach in respect to attempting to contacting any member or associate, given his intent to serve an illegitimate summons and the interaction he had with [JM].
... On 7 June 2023, the Parole Board noted the submissions that they had received to date and resolved that the applicant was to remain in custody awaiting an interview on 18 July 2023.
The applicant was interviewed by the Parole Board on 1 August 2023. Mr Mercer was present via AVL for the interview. A number of topics were canvassed in the interview. These included:
The applicant’s diabetes and the medical reasons that prevented him from providing a urine sample.
The background to and reason for the applicant attending at the Lonsdale address.
The circumstances in which the applicant came to be in contact with JM.
The applicant’s denials that he in any way wanted to contact JM.
The suggestion that for many years the police have had concerns that the applicant holds an anti-government and anti-law enforcement attitude which has resulted in him stockpiling firearms and ammunition (which was denied by the applicant).
The applicant’s plan to try and create 100 jobs in South Australia.
The applicant’s civil action in the Magistrates Court.
Whether the applicant has had any psychiatric or psychological treatment.
Suggestions made by the Presiding Member that some of the applicant’s belief system were not based in reality and the issues that this may pose for the applicant moving on into the future.
The circumstances of the firearms offences, about which the applicant maintained the version rejected by the sentencing Judge.
The applicant’s previous involvement in the Commonwealth Justice Assembly and the role of that group.
The suggestion by the Presiding Member that the applicant had not been engaging with his Community Corrections Officer.
As a result of the interview, the Parole Board raised concerns with respect to the applicant’s mental health. On 2 August 2023, the Parole Board determined that prior to making a determination on the breaches, they would require a psychiatric assessment of the applicant and his level of risk if released into the community.?
... It is apparent from the various materials before me, that one of the applicant’s greatest criminogenic risk factors is his ongoing involvement in, or association with, the Commonwealth Justice Assembly. It was in the context of his role in that organisation that the applicant had committed the firearms offences.
In 2020, the applicant was diagnosed with Persistent Delusional Disorder. His involvement with Community Mental Health Services came about after he wrote several letters to Parliament. At that time, the applicant displayed delusional conspiracy theories, including alleging that the legal system was corrupt as it was run by Freemasons.
In addition, the applicant has a history of being hostile, irritable and belligerent to mental health clinicians and the police.
In a Parole Board Report prepared in January 2023 it was observed:
Furthermore, [the applicant] is widely considered a cult-type leader expressing his sovereign citizen ’s beliefs. [The applicant] appears to not be a violent person but has demonstrated the ability to groom and manipulate people. In prison, there were concerns that he was attempting to recruit prison staff to his political organisation at the Adelaide Remand Centre. Furthermore, [the applicant] described himself as an influential person in prison, assisting other prisoners in writing submissions to the Parole Board and making legal challenges within the court system.
Against that backdrop it was previously reported that the applicant was the leader of the Commonwealth Justice Assembly which, at its height, boasted over 2,000 members. The Commonwealth Justice Assembly was known to promote sovereign citizen ideology. The applicant told DCS authorities that he wanted to return to the political party when released from prison. He denied that it was a cult or terrorist organisation, suggesting instead that it was committed to obtaining justice for all Australians.
In interviewing the applicant for the December 2023 psychiatric report, Dr Jesudason raised the topic of the applicant’s involvement in the Commonwealth Justice Assembly. The applicant described them as a community based group who “try to help people out with justice matters”. Dr Jesudason described the applicant as becoming evasive when asked about the ethos of the group and who their founding members were. The applicant acknowledged that the group would meet regularly on his Lonsdale property and that he did not charge money for his services. The applicant claimed that at one point there were 9,000 members but said that it had closed down since he was imprisoned.
Dr Jesudason expressed the view that the applicant appeared to underplay his belief system however “there was evidence of ongoing fixed beliefs around a political organisation he likely founded (CJA) as well as beliefs surrounding the management of his legal status that fall into the realm of previously documented anti-government/anti-authoritarian views”.
Dr Jesudason identified a number of matters that complicated the applicant’s situation. She said:
What complicates [the applicant’s] case is that his delusional belief systems can be increasingly interpreted as cultural norms, given the current political context. Indeed, [the applicant] has had mental health assessments where members of the CJA have been present and behaved in a similar manner as him, to the same clinicians.
In Wells v Queensland Police Service [2024] QDC 38 the judgment states
... when being called upon to present her defence, the appellant proceeded to make submissions in terms which have been recognised as typical of a particular type of pseudolaw commonly presented to the courts by unqualified persons, often identifying as adherents to “sovereign citizen” ideas: see Young, Hobbs and McIntyre, “The growth of pseudolaw and sovereign citizens in Aotearoa New Zealand courts” [2023] NZLJ 6; “A Kind of Magic: The Origins and Culture of ‘Pseudolaw’”, a paper delivered to the Queensland Magistrates’ State Conference 2022 on 26 May 2022 by His Honour Cash KC; R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216. They included assertions along the lines of the “strawman” argument often presented by such litigants.
[5] A particular focus was put upon something which was referred to as the “12 presumptions of Roman law.” The appellant challenged the Magistrate that she openly rebuked, rejected and rebutted all 12 presumptions of Roman law and provided further detailed submissions as to those so-called presumptions of “Roman law Canon 3228”. The submissions were, I expect, to the Magistrate, and remain so to me, baffling. I know of no “Roman law Canon 3228” which is part of the law of Queensland. The asserted rebuttal, in its terms, did not seem to, in any way, go towards the merits of the charge before the Court. At the end of the day, I am left wondering what it all meant.
[6] Ultimately, the learned Magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of the evidentiary certificates and the rejection of the defendant’s arguments, insofar as the learned Magistrate was able to articulate them, of the guilt of the appellant of the offence. He fined her the penalty of $183 for the traffic infringement and ordered that she pay the costs of the summons of $107.95; therefore, a total of $290.95.
[7] The appellant filed a notice of appeal in this Court pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 against her conviction. The ground of appeal was stated as “The Magistrate refused to accept my position as executor and beneficiary”. An outline of submissions filed on 23 March 2023 stated as follows:
My name is Amy and I am a living woman, of sound mind, of god and from nature. I am the beneficiary and executor of the (AMY JANE WELLS) TRUST, which was created through the birth registration process on (6th October 1976). I am appealing the decision made by the Magistrate MAG-00132878/22(6) in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 27th January 2023 because:
1/ He refused to accept my position as beneficiary and executor.
2/ I have been governed without my consent.
3/ I formally challenged and rebutted the 12 Presumptions of Roman Law (Canon 3228) via an Affidavit, on the record. They were un-rebutted on the record, on the record and the Magistrate continued to proceed regardless. I did this also at the review mention.
4/ From The Twelve Presumptions Of Roman Law – CANON 3228: Presumption Three – The Presumption of Public Oath is that; All members of the Private Bar Guild, ACTING in the capacity of Public Officials, who have sworn a solemn oath, remain bound by that oath and therefore, bound to serve honestly, impartially and fairly, as dictated by their oath Unless openly challenged and demanded, the PRESUMPTION stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath, in contradiction to their guild oath. IF CHALLENGED – such individuals MUST recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under their public oath.
5/ I rebutted (challenged) the presumption of Public Oath – the third of the Twelve Presumptions of Law. I asked the Magistrate on the record, “To whom do you swear your oath to? The Private Bar Guild or an Oath of Public Office?” To which he replied that he had never heard of that and that he swore his oath to the Queen? So he did not prove me wrong, therefore, it is a conflict of interest and grounds for dismissal of this case, on the grounds that fraud has been perpetrated on the Court, myself and this case.
[8] On the hearing of the appeal, the appellant has continued to rely upon her argument as to the 12 Presumptions of Roman law Canon 3228. As mentioned earlier, I find this argument perplexing and legally incoherent. Although I do not pretend to fully understand the argument, I am quite satisfied that it is legal nonsense and provides no possible grounds for allowing an appeal against her conviction. The other, more familiar, pseudolegal arguments as to the “strawman” personality, are the arguments that the appellant has not consented to the government or legislative authority, or that there is no contract demonstrating consent, such that she is not subject to the traffic law is obviously devoid of any merit and provide no possible ground of appeal against conviction.
[9] The appellant also made submissions in a somewhat scattergun approach as to various reasons why the legislation passed by the Commonwealth and State parliaments is invalid, mostly familiar from previous pseudolegal litigation of this type, all clearly untenable and devoid of merit. I see no reason why further time of this Court should be wasted by dealing with any of those untenable arguments in any detail. Merely stating the terms of such arguments would be to underline their lack of merit.
[10] The appellant appeared to mount some attack upon the jurisdiction of this Court too, but I am not at all clear how that would have assisted the appellant. In any event, she presented no argument of any legal coherence as to why this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear what her appeal was, calling upon the jurisdiction of this Court.
[11] The appellant made submissions as to an apparent lack of impartiality of myself in hearing the appeal and assertions as to an abuse of process. Such submissions were entirely devoid of merit.
[12] The appellant made submissions that she had made a “Calderbank offer” to the respondent to settle the matter, which, by operation of the “postal acceptance rule,” had either compromised the appeal or precluded the ability of the respondent to obtain any judgment in excess of such offer. It is, of course, trite to say that parties to an appeal of this type cannot compromise such. Even if parties make joint submissions as to an outcome, it is still a matter for the Court as to what orders it makes. In this case, insofar as the respondent is concerned, there has been no compromise on the matter. The appellant’s submissions to the contrary are devoid of merit.
[13] Ultimately, the appellant made no submissions towards the merits of the appea l....
[17] There is no reason why the appellant should not pay the costs sought by the respondent, having chosen to litigate an appeal that was totally devoid of any merit.
[18] It is most unfortunate that the deluded and untenable pseudolegal arguments contended by the appellant appear to have been adopted by her, whether upon her own part or the advice of others. Her unfortunate decision to defend the charge in the Magistrates Court on the basis of such deluded ideas and to appeal the decision of the learned Magistrate in this Court has resulted in a modest traffic fine of $183 escalating to a financial burden more than 10 times as much.
In Nikolajuk v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 96 the appellant had been convicted of exceeding the speed limit after a trial in the Magistrates Court. The judgment states 'at first instance and on appeal the self-represented appellant made nonsensical pseudolegal submissions totally devoid of merit'.
... [3] I have available to me a transcript of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court on 7 March 2024 and a copy of all the exhibits admitted during the course of the trial. I have reviewed all that material. [4] At the commencement of the trial, the defendant declined to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, but stated that he did not commit the crime. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate proceeded on the basis that the defendant was pleading not guilty. After having rejected an opening submission by the self-represented defendant that the police had no authority to charge him with any offence, the learned Magistrate offered the defendant an adjournment to consider his position or obtain legal advice. The defendant declined such opportunity. The defendant instead made further submissions why the Magistrates Court lacked jurisdiction over him and submitted that there was a constitutional matter that required notice to the Attorneys-General pursuant to section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The defendant submitted that the fact that the police and court documents capitalised his name had some significance and made some submissions along the lines of the “strawman” theory often presented by pseudolegal litigants. ...
[11] The arguments advanced by the defendant, both at first instance and on appeal, are typical of a particular type of pseudolaw commonly presented to the courts by unqualified persons. Although the defendant disavows the label “sovereign citizen” and reliance upon the “strawman” theory, his submissions are such that are commonly presented by persons identifying as adherence to “sovereign citizen” ideas, including assertions along the lines of the strawman argument often presented by such litigants.
[12] The notice of appeal sets out grounds of appeal, which will be dealt with shortly. The appellant has also filed extensive written submissions by way of an outline of argument numbering more than 60 pages and an addendum outline of submissions numbering 22 pages. I have had regard to all the contents of that material as well as some further documents that were admitted as an exhibit on the appeal. The appellant has also made extensive oral submissions repetitive of those matters in his written material. I will deal with the grounds of appeal in order.
[13] 1. The decision-maker man acting as Magistrate Lance Randale acting in his foreign jurisdiction, did not have the authority or proper jurisdiction to make the decision to enter plea, run the case using his own opinions and convict and enter the order. The decision-maker man acting as Magistrate Lance Rundle breached the rules of natural justice.
There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. As already noted, upon the refusal of the appellant to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, it was quite proper for the learned Magistrate to proceed on the basis that the appellant was pleading not guilty to the offence. The Magistrate was quite entitled to find on the evidence placed before him that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt. He did not lack any authority or jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge, which was properly within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. The learned Magistrate was at pains to explain the procedure and applicable law to the appellant and offered him opportunities for an adjournment to seek legal advice. There was no denial of procedural fairness. This ground of appeal is not made out.
[14] 2. The decision-maker man acting as Magistrate Lance Randale involved an improper use of power and committed Treason by siting (sic) in Magistrate Court with wrong linage (sic) of Authority pretending that he is the Officer of the lawful Crown working for foreign governments and political subdivisions of AUSTRALIA, Registered Corporations Washington DC and held to Uniform Commercial Code of United States District of Columbia.
The ground of appeal need only be stated to demonstrate that it is utter nonsense, and no further time of this Court will be spent in dealing with it.
[15] 3. The decision-maker man acting as Magistrate Lance Randale committed Violation of the Rights recognised in international treaties. An implied limit on executive processes. International Treaty is cited here as a defence. Declaration of Independence and self determination is attached to this Document as exhibit 1
This ground of appeal, as with the others, is further developed in the material filed by the appellant and in his oral submissions. It is entirely without merit and deserves no further consideration.
[16] 4. Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, Magistrate Lance Randale in his court is deprived of juris.
I have already rejected an allegation of a denial of procedural fairness and the submission that the Magistrates Court lacked jurisdiction. This ground of appeal is without merit.
[17] 5. A decision or judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction is void. It is a nullity. The court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well-established law that a void order can be challenged in any court.
This ground of appeal adds nothing further to the submissions that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the charge and deserves no further consideration.
[18] 6. Refusing to consider and rule on my 4 motions, that is qualified as gross misconduct in public office and due process violation.
This ground of appeal refers to four documents that were admitted as exhibits during the course of the trial and were, as stated by the learned Magistrate, considered by him. They consisted of untenable pseudolegal contentions which were bound to be rejected by a Court, and the lack of any formal ruling upon them is quite understandable. It certainly does not amount to any error by the Magistrate and certainly does not amount to misconduct in public office or “due process violation”.
[19] 7. The decision was in some other way unlawful. All this giving rise to an apprehension of bias; Magistrate refused to accept any evidence from me. I ask man acting as Magistrate Patrick Murphy and on second visit Magistrate John Costanzo then on mt (sic) third visit Magistrate Annette Hennessy and Magistrate Lance Randale to consider my 4 Motions and rule up on them. They did not do that. (all motions and documents are in Magistrate files) The obligation of the Magistrates will, in some cases, include informing the accused of the operation of Evidence and the right of the accused to request a direction on evidence that may be unreliable. Helping the Police Prosecution by allowing them not to produce most vital evidence I ask for. I needed any information that is necessary to ensure a fair trial, I was dented (sic) this on my 4 visits in Pine Rivers Court.
The Magistrate informed the defendant of his right to give or call evidence. The appellant declined that opportunity. As to appearances before prior Magistrates, none of the events on those earlier hearings are relevant to an appeal against the conviction. I have already noted, in considering ground 6, the assertion that the learned trial Magistrate was required to rule upon such motions. As earlier stated, the learned trial Magistrate did inform the accused of such matters necessary to ensure that he was adequately informed of his rights. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that the assertion of apprehended bias is groundless.
[20] 8. Magistrate Lance Randale refused to consider Judiciary Act 1903 – Sect 78B on 7nd March 2024. I rise quiet (sic) number of times Constitutional challenge and Mr, Lance Randale compliantly disregarded this with silence (3 times) instead Mr, Lance Randle want to talk about Straw-man theory whatever that is, another opinion he want to hold to derail justice further and further giving prosecution more cover for they (sic) lack of Lawful Authority under the Crown. That is Due process violation.
A constitutional issue does not arise for the purposes of section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) merely because a party asserts that it does. If the alleged “constitutional issue” is unarguable, there is in truth no constitutional issue at all. There was, in fact, no arguable constitutional matter requiring any notice pursuant to section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), and no error was demonstrated by the Magistrate continuing to hear and determine the charge without offering the appellant a further opportunity of an adjournment for that purpose. The other assertions in this ground of appeal as to lack of authority of the police to prosecute the appellant have already been dealt with in dealing with the earlier grounds.
[21] In oral submissions, the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Magistrate was biased and assisting the prosecution. A perusal of the record demonstrates that there is no basis for such an assertion.
[22] The appellant complains about the effects of appearances before the Magistrates Court upon his health because of a spinal injury. Such submission is irrelevant to the merits of the appeal.
[23] The appellant continues to assert, as in his written material, that he is not bound by any statutory law because all statutory law is invalid. Such argument is so clearly untenable and contrary to longstanding authority that it does not require further elucidation.
[24] Likewise, the appellant’s assertion that he is not to be held responsible for any actions as a driver of a motor vehicle unless he injures another person is clearly untenable.
[25] The submissions by the appellant regarding the significance of capitalisation of his name in police and court documents are irrelevant to the merits of the appeal.
[26] None of the submissions by the appellant, either in writing or orally, address the merits of his conviction of the offence.
