N.B.: The sections in bold print were either left out of the Attorney-General's transcript.
N.B.: The transcript was ordered on 16 Nov.
but, after 2 weeks, the Reporting Services of the Attoreney-General's Department (a Rita Doren) told me on the phone that no transcript was taken of the evidence and there was only a Judgment. When I reacted in amazement
she said she would ask the Court Reporter again and contact me the next day. The next day, no call - so, I phoned them, etc., etc. - a lot of denials, hassle and people not being "in today" or going "on
leave". Eventually a transcript arrived on 10 Dec. but with important elements missing (which has been the case with some other transcripts) and words attributed to me which I deny. Below is the transcript with the
minimalist of correction.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
40579/01
PRIESTLEY JA
STEIN JA
FRIDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2001
JOHN WILSON v ST GEORGE BANK LTD & STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
The claimant in person.
Mr Wells for the opponent
CLAIMANT: My name is Wilson. I represent myself. I presume your name is Priestley JA?
PRIESTLEY JA: The people who are hearing your application are myself, Priestley is my name, and Stein JA.
CLAIMANT: I object to Mr Stein being in this case. He has already given a judgment ruling against the right for trial by jury. He is prejudiced.
PRIESTLEY JA: I will leave him to answer your objection. Do you have a problem in hearing
CLAIMANT: Yes I do .
PRIESTLEY JA: I will speak up. I will leave Stein JA to answer your objection.
STEIN JA: Are you asking me to disqualify myself?
CLAIMANT: Yes, because you have already ruled against a person's right to trial by jury. I think it was 1968 before Hidden J ruled that Magna Carta
was obsolete. I took that to the Court of Appeal and you and Handley JA agreed that people in Australia do not have the right to trial by jury and that Magna Carta was obsolete. You have already prejudged this case on
appeal.
STEIN JA: This is a different type of matter. You are appealing or seeking leave to appeal from Adams J in different circumstances.
CLAIMANT: It is not different. It is the same
basis. It is the right of a person to trial by jury. It is a matter of jurisdiction and the first judgment Adams J gave was that he did have the right to hear the notice of motion without a jury. So he, on that
basis, that is my basis for the appeal, the first appeal, because he ruled against the right of a person's right to trial by jury and you have already done so in an allied case.
STEIN JA: I have no recollection
of the particular circumstances and I see no reason why I should disqualify myself.
CLAIMANT: Do you deny--
STEIN JA: I am not going to be cross-examined, Mr Wilson. I have just indicated--
CLAIMANT: I am trying to get to the truth.
STEIN JA: I have just indicated my ruling. I am not prepared to disqualify myself.
CLAIMANT: Even though you have ruled against a person's right to trial by jury?
STEIN JA: I am not answering questions from you. I am not to be interrogated. I have given my ruling.
CLAIMANT: So, you are not here to answer questions?
STEIN JA: Certainly not.
CLAIMANT: I am trying to seek the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
STEIN JA: Mr Wilson, I have given my ruling and that is it.
CLAIMANT: We will carry on from there. That is what it is all about. The first issue is a person's right to trial by jury.
PRIESTLEY JA: I
have read Adams J's reasons for dismissing your case before him. I had the impression from them, and you can correct me if I am wrong, your basic proposition is that a litigant is entitled to trial by jury in any kind
of case .
CLAIMANT: In any action, as is says in s 3 of the Supreme Court Procedures Act (read). "In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in question may
be tried, or the amount of damages or compensation may be assessed by a Judge without a jury."
PRIESTLEY JA: Can I ask you two things about that? What do you say the words "by consent" mean
in that part which you just read out?
CLAIMANT: "Consent" is to agree. I do not agree to be without a jury at any stage. I have been asking for a jury the last five years. Every time I come
into a court the judge says: no you don't have the right to trial by jury, no matter what the issue is. I say under Magna Carta we have the right to trial by jury.
PRIESTLEY JA: Can you tell me whether
that Supreme Court Procedure Act has been repealed or not?
CLAIMANT: It has been repealed and replaced by the 1970 Supreme Court Act, that says quite wrongly that the court is constituted by a judge alone. That
is no law. If you read my argument you will see why it is not law.
PRIESTLEY JA: I read your argument. It is interesting, but more on an academic level I think than concerns a judge who is sitting here
like I am--
CLAIMANT: It is more than academic--
PRIESTLEY JA: --who believes that he is bound by the Supreme Court Act 1970.
CLAIMANT: No he is not.
PRIESTLEY JA: Okay. That is the issue--
CLAIMANT: He is bound to administer justice. If a law is no law a court should nullify that law.
PRIESTLEY JA: Again, that is a very interesting
argument but it not one judges sitting here are able to act on.
CLAIMANT: Yes you are.
PRIESTLEY JA: You say we are--
CLAIMANT: You swore an oath of allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
PRIESTLEY JA: I see in your submissions you have set out the judicial oath.
CLAIMANT: The what?
PRIESTLEY JA: The judicial oath.
CLAIMANT: Yep, to do right.
PRIESTLEY JA: According to the laws and customs of New South Wales.
CLAIMANT:
No. "After" not "according to". Yeah, and if there is no law they--
PRIESTLEY JA: How do you say the 1970 Supreme Court Act is not the law?
CLAIMANT: Where it
is invalid, because no Parliament has the power under the Constitution to make laws to take away the rights of the people. The Government is there to secure the rights of people.
PRIESTLEY JA: Where do we find the rights of the people written down?
CLAIMANT: It came in 1788 from England. It has never left - the common law right to trial by jury.
PRIESTLEY JA: If I
wanted to find out the rights of the people, that you say are the rights of the people, where do I go to read it?
CLAIMANT: In the Magna Carta, in the Bill of Rights, Petition of Rights, Confirmation of Charters,
there is a whole plethora of laws.
PRIESTLEY JA: If I may say so, I understand the argument. I follow your argument, Mr Wilson, but the argument leaves out some things which judges are bound to follow, because all
of those instruments that you have referred to are subject to the power of the New South Wales Parliament to change.
CLAIMANT: They cannot take away people's rights.
PRIESTLEY JA: That is your point of view.
CLAIMANT: It is the point of view of Quick and Garran in the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia,
the Parliament cannot take away the rights of the people.
PRIESTLEY JA: I have read your written submissions. You are speaking in absolute terms of a proposition which is much wider--
CLAIMANT: This is the most important case in Australia's history.
PRIESTLEY JA: Which is?
CLAIMANT: This
right to trial by jury and the fact judges deny that right to trial by jury. It is a scandal, an absolute scandal.
PRIESTLEY JA: Some people believe the right way to approach this is to elect people to
Parliament and then to leave it to Parliament to make the laws. It is the people who elect the Parliament.
CLAIMANT: It is the duty of the courts, consisting of judge and jury, to nullify any law which is
unjust, takes away one's rights, protects wrongs. It is a consensus of power granted by Parliament to make such laws.(This is not what I said, at all).
PRIESTLEY JA: Do you say the High Court has got to sit with a jury?
CLAIMANT: Yep, any court which claims to be a court must have a judge and a jury.
PRIESTLEY JA: This applies to appeals as well as to trials?
CLAIMANT: Any court. If you call yourself a court, then you must have a jury and any law which says that a court does not have a jury is no law.
STEIN JA: We should have a jury here, for this leave application?
CLAIMANT: Absolutely, in any action.
PRIESTLEY JA: You say the High Court, which has been sitting since 1903, has never
produced a valid decision?
CLAIMANT: I don't know all their decisions. As far as I am concerned the High Court has declared invalid unjust laws. I think Kable is a typical example.
PRIESTLEY JA: Kable is
a good example. That is the question. You said a moment ago the High Court has to sit with a jury.
CLAIMANT: Unless by consent of both parties. The 1900 Act precedes any High Court Act and in fact in
the High Court there is a jury box, is there not?
PRIESTLEY JA: It is a long time since I have been there.
STEIN JA: I think there probably is. I do not remember it ever having juries sitting in it, though.
CLAIMANT: A guide showed me into courtroom 3 and said "Over there is the jury box".
PRIESTLEY JA: The High Court is a first instance jurisdiction. That is, the High Court can conduct jury
trials at first instance but not on appeal. Getting back to your point here today, am I right in thinking that is your whole argument here today?
CLAIMANT: No.
PRIESTLEY JA: You have not heard my question yet.
CLAIMANT: I am only starting with my initial point.
PRIESTLEY JA: Your initial point is, if I understand, that any court to be a court which you
recognise must consist of a judge and jury, is that right?
CLAIMANT: Yep.
PRIESTLEY JA: That is your first point. What is the rest of your first point?
CLAIMANT: The first point is
relating to the necessity for trial by jury and as far as dealing with any motion that must also be heard by a court - the court being made up of a judge and jury. When it is an interlocutory matter, then an interlocutory
matter does not bring a finality judgment. An interlocutory application only brings an interlocutory order. It is not final. A notice of motion to dismiss a case brings a final judgment and so therefore on the
matter of jurisdiction, there is a section in Halsbury's Laws of Australia, par 130-13655 which talks about jurisdiction of the court, "A jury is empanelled to determine" those special matters, not the
judge. The judge cannot decide upon jurisdiction. A special jury is empanelled to determine jurisdiction.
PRIESTLEY JA: What is the next step in your argument?
CLAIMANT: As far as the right to
trial by jury, there are many Bills and Acts reinforcing that special right - I think that is already in my summary of argument, so I won't go over that. Again, insofar as the so-called interlocutory order, an
interlocutory order is progress of a legal action and having immediate force. It is not to conclude or finalise a case.
PRIESTLEY JA: That is the point you made a moment ago. We have that point.
CLAIMANT: That is another reference to the same thing. On the line of the right to trial by jury, I think I have already quoted the case of the Court of Appeal of England v Wales and the Queen v Secretary of the State
for the Commonwealth - that has already been dealt with.
If you do not have juries determining the administration of justice then you have a Star Chamber. The Star Chamber was abolished by the Act of 1640. They
recognised the injustice of judges only ruling over the courts.
PRIESTLEY JA: This all supports your proposition that the court consist of judge and jury?
CLAIMANT: You must have a jury. You have
another section of the Supreme Court Procedures where the interlocutory order effectively determines the substantive rights between the parties. That consideration maybe puts a significant factor in favour of granting the
leave to appeal. So, if you want a copy of that you can have a look at it.
PRIESTLEY JA: No, that is all right.
CLAIMANT: On the same theme: interlocutory orders relate to practice and
procedures as distinct from involving the determination of substantial rights. Again, there is a substantial right to trial by jury which I have been fighting for in these courts for the last five years, all the time being
denied. That is the issue of right to trial by jury.
The second issue is the actual presentation of affidavit evidence I gave before Adams J. I went through the affidavits, which are evidence about bank
fraud, consisting of the variable interest rate loan contracts which render contracts void for uncertainty. This is a matter I have been fighting in these courts for the last five years, but as far as the judges are concerned a
variable rate of interest is indeed certain and that is a lie.
When I took the matter to the High Court of Australia, I asked Kirby and Toohey J, I said "Does variable mean
uncertain?" They refused to answer the question, avoiding the truth. The court is a place where truth is to be administered, to be sought.
That is a very serious allegation of fraud based upon a simple
definition and Michael Adams J ignored that - he totally ignored that evidence.
PRIESTLEY JA: I had the impression he carefully went through all your affidavit evidence.
CLAIMANT: I took him through it,
piece by piece and he decided not to take any action on that evidence of fraud - which is, in fact, concealing a serious offence.
This matter must be put before a jury: the judges will not administer justice on that
argument. Also, the other argument of banks committing fraud in a form of creation of money - I presented that to Michael Adams J and said, "Here is evidence from the Reserve Bank of Australia's own
journals. The figures from the Reserve Bank show private banks in Australia create between $20 and $30 billion a year - they create it for themselves". That is fraud. Then they lend it
out. The borrower has to repay that money plus interest. Now, that is the greatest scandal in the history of Australia. It is a swindle. Michael Adams J decided no action could be taken. What more clear proof can you get than figures from the journal of the Reserve Bank of Australia? This is very, very serious. Extremely serious.
PRIESTLEY JA: The two principal points that you say you should be given leave to appeal about are the jury point and the fraud point, is that right?
CLAIMANT: Fraud, yes; and judicial corruption because
the judicial corruption is intertwined with the fraud - the fact I have been taking this argument to the courts for the last five years.
PRIESTLEY JA: Thank you Mr Wilson. We do not intend to call on your opponent.
FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT.
Site researched and written by J. Wilson jhwilson@acay.com.au and is best viewed with a screen resolution of 600 x 800ppi
or better, using Netscape or MSIE version 4.0 browsers or higher. © 2000
.