TScript 300902

Home Latest News Press Release The Book Newsletters Links

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

040398/021

HANDLEY JA
HODGSON JA

MONDAY 30 SEPTEMBER 2002

JOHN WILSON v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Claimant appeared unrepresented
Mr P Rosionoff for the Opponent

HANDLEY JA: Mr Wilson we've read Judge Delaney's decision and we've read your written submissions and we've read what the Commissioner of Taxation has put on by way of submissions and this is your chance to speak to those submissions. We limit argument to half an hour.

CLAIMANT: Okay, the last time was just a directions hearing or callover and at that stage the opponent had not filed their response.

HANDLEY JA: You'd not been give a copy of their response?

CLAIMANT: Yeah but it was posted to me and they said in the letter they were going to file it. It has been filed has it?

HANDLEY JA: Yes, we have it.

CLAIMANT: I've had you before Mr Handley. You denied trial by jury on that occasion too.

HANDLEY JA: As did the High Court.

CLAIMANT: Yeah they're wrong too. Because it's all about the rights of the people and so we're - at this moment I'm appealing against the judgments in the District Court and the issues I'm raising is that that District Court of New South Wales at Parramatta was not a properly constituted Common Law Court.

A Common Law Court consists of a judge and a jury. The denial of my right to trial by a jury is an offence against the Constitution. The Constitution's just not one particular act from the - or part of an act from the United Kingdom. Our Constitution is a body of laws and principles that govern this country. In fact trial by jury is well entrenched as constitutional law. It is even listed as a constitutional enactment and I refer to the Imperial Acts Application Act, which in its schedule, second schedule is headed up Constitutional Enactments, these constitutional laws and that includes Magna Carta and the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights. All these guarantee an Australian citizen the right to trial by jury.

I was talking to the other barrister and he admitted he had never read the Bill of Rights. This is a terrible admission, so how can these people call themselves learned when they've never read the most fundamental laws that govern our country, common law. He had never read the Bill of Rights.

So that the first issue is of course that because there was no jury, I kept on insisting upon a jury, it was constantly denied. So therefore that court is not valid, it is not a legitimate Common Law Court.

Our right to trial by jury, talking about Australian people has been established long before we even came to this country. It began with Magna Carta, the guarantee, there were always juries before then, that it was guaranteed forever by Magna Carta, has been reinforced over and over throughout the centuries, this right to trial by jury, by our equals.

I don't know if the other barrister has even read the Magna Carta, but it quite clearly "No free man...right or justice". This is absolutely fundamental and Petition of Right, which is 1628 reinforces that by saying that "The awards in...of the premises", which refers to the great charters of England which includes Magna Carta of course "shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example". So those proceedings and awards and doings from the District Court are of no consequence or example. This has been stated also with the Confirmation of Charters which says that "The pleas or...holden for nought". Now this is absolutely fundamental to our system and justice. The common people, in fact Australia is a common law country. Even the Constitution which is part - the constitutional part of the United Kingdom Act, that is the Constitute of the Commonwealth of Australia is the common law, because they had to get approval by referendum before they could even present it to the United Kingdom parliament. So therefore that very issue of not being allowed trial by jury must set aside any judgments that Justice Norman Delaney came up with on that day. And even the point of the judge not having Federal jurisdiction. The other side are the Commissioner of Taxation and the issues are Federal issues and all the issues I brought up including the validity of the Constitution, the right to a grand jury, these are all common law issues which are Federal issues. And Judge Delaney even admitted himself, I refer to the transcript on that day, p 11.54, "I, as the judge, cannot act beyond the jurisdiction given to me when I was sworn in as a judge of this particular court. I am not a judge of the Federal Court, I am not a judge of the Supreme Court". So he admits that he does not have Federal jurisdiction. It can't be plainer than that. ( N.B.: Highlighted dialogue missing from the Attorney-General's transcript).

HANDLEY JA: Well he's not a judge of the Federal Court but that doesn't mean he doesn't have Federal jurisdiction.

CLAIMANT: He does not because he has not been appointed by the Governor General and he has not sworn the oath which a Federal judge must swear and they can be seen.

HANDLEY JA: You've set it out in your submissions.

CLAIMANT: Yeah that's right. It's such a plain and simple case that that hearing was totally illegitimate, being denied trial by jury just wipes out all those awards, doings and proceedings just as the Petition of Rights says and a Petition of Right is also constitutional law listed in the Imperial Acts Application Act.

So I've been fighting this cause for quite some time, being denied justice and I will not give up on it. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm again denied this same right and I will go again to the High Court. This will bring to a conclusion my particular campaign for the rights, not only to myself, but my family and my neighbours, the right to trial by jury and I will probably have to rely upon the United Nationals International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and go through their optional protocol. I have just got a letter to do exactly that, to go via the optional protocol.

Judges in Australia say that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not law in Australia. That is totally wrong. This is a copy of a document from the Commonwealth Government which says that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entry into force for Australia except for article 41, 13 November 1980. Article 41 came into force generally on 28 January 1993 in Australia.

So the requirements under Article 14 (as said), again it's in my submissions, are that we are all entitled in the determination of our rights and obligations in a suit of law, everyone should be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

I've got a volume of references all saying the same thing, that Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, all demand that a person, a free man is entitled to the lawful judgment of his equals.

The strength of common law was clearly stated by Lord Coke who said that "The common law doth control Acts of Parliament and when adjudged against common right to be void." (N.B. Highlighted dialogue missing from Attorney-General's transcript). Now I've argued with judges about that before. They said that statute law overrules common law. Well not in a common law country where we have democracy, where the people rule. In my submission I think I've put in a little one page essay on sovereignty. Sovereignty means the ultimate overseer of the laws in our country and sovereignty lies with the people. Not with the judges in the Supreme Court, District Court, High Court, it lies with the people. This is why we must have juries. Juries are the people. The people decide their rights, not the elite who are judges, who are in fact aptly sworn allegiance to a foreign power. This is another issue which has got to be gone into by the people. Not by the judges in the High Court. Because there it is not natural justice. Naturally the judges will judge it in their own favour, that is bias.

So all these issues of rights must be determined by the people, by a jury, not by judges. So this is what we're being denied and this is why so many people are just not being told what their rights are.

So it's all a matter of what is there. A court is here to administer justice and as I've explained quite clearly, that justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. I've yet to see a judge in any court protect the right to trial by jury. It seems to be a vested interest to secure the absolute power for the judges. There's even been a totally void act as Lord Coke says void. It's called the Courts Legislation Amendments Civil Juries Act, which takes away a person's right to trial by jury. That is no law, it is void. Because it basically takes away the right to trial by jury and yet the judges are only too happy to hold onto that and say this is good, this gives us more power, this gives us absolute power and you don't deserve absolute power, you should not have absolute power.

The final line, the final avenue in all issues of rights comes down to the people. The people are a jury. A jury does not represent the people, a jury is the people.

There are other side issues, but that should be enough to have Judge Norman Delaney's four judgments just thrown out, set aside and a new trial appointed.

You said that Judge Norman Delaney does have Federal jurisdiction and he does not.

So to try any of these issues it must go before the people and I shall continue to fight, for not only my rights, but your rights too and the rights of your children and my children, our neighbours. It's a fundamental right to common law.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT

HANDLEY JA: The Court need not trouble you Mr Rosionoff.

FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT

Home Latest News Press Release The Book Newsletters Links