TScripts98a

Home Latest News Press Release The Book Newsletters Links

LOCAL COURT
DOWNING CENTRE

MAGISTRATE:J MILLEDGE

FRIDAY 16 JANUARY 1998

POLICE v JOHN WILSON

CHARGE Threaten injury

Ms Lagana for the Informant
Defendant appeared unrepresented
Defendant of f bail

LAGANA:I appear for the DPP in matter number 95 on the charge sheet, the matter of John Wilson. Mr Wilson appears for himself.

BENCH:Mr Wilson, go to that tall microphone if you would please.

Mr Wilson, you understand that you're facing two allegations today, is that so?

DEFENDANT:Yes.

BENCH:When was that fresh charge laid Ms Lagana, on the last occasion was it?

DEFENDANT:It was laid on 26 September.

BENCH:So you're aware of it.

DEFENDANT:Yes, and the solicitor for the opposition at that time said that the first charge would be dropped and the second one would continue. Apparently now they're changed their mind.

BENCH:Let's hear what Ms Lagana has to say.

LAGANA:The matter is in today for mention, it's the application of the DPP that the matter be adjourned for a further period of time. Mr Wilson has contempt proceedings which are currently outstanding in the Supreme Court and I've been advised by the Crown Solicitors Office that they are to be heard on 20 March.

It's a matter where I've been instructed by the Director to seek an adjournment till the outcome of the Supreme Court contempt proceedings are finalised.

BENCH:Because you think that would have a bearing on the matter--

LAGANA:Yes, the DPP wishes to asses the course that the office may take in respect of these proceedings, having regard to the outcome in the contempt proceedings.

As I understand the matter was in court last year and at that stage the proceedings hadn't been finalised. Mr Wilson had lodged an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in relation to technical argument and I've been advised that all the time table has been set in respect of that matter. The matter is now listed for 20 March 1998.

BENCH:How long do you expect it to take, when would it be finished?

LAGANA:On my advice it would be some time, I understand that the matter should be finalised on 20 March.

BENCH:So it should be at end--

LAGANA:Yes. The DPP is just asking for a further mention date after that date to see what happens in those proceedings.

As I understand Mr Wilson objects to the adjournment.

BENCH:What you are saying is that this matter may not even proceed depending on the outcome of the other one.

LAGANA:Depending on that, I understand the Director wishes to review the matter once the contempt proceedings--

BENCH:They are linked?

LAGANA:They arise out of the same factual circumstances, essentially the allegation is that Mr Wilson was in the Supreme Court to receive a judgment and the allegation is that he threw essentially two paint bombs at an acting Supreme Court Justice when the judgment was delivered which was adverse to his interests. That is the allegation in this matter and the contempt proceedings arise out of that same factual situation.

BENCH:You understand what they're saying don't you?

DEFENDANT:I received a summons regarding the proposed charge of contempt of court. I received that six weeks after the actual incident. So I was charged on 5 September under section 326 of the Crimes Act, and like I say six weeks later the summons came for the contempt of court.

I cannot see it being finished anywhere near March because I am in the process of requesting a trial by jury and that is matter of great controversy at this stage.

BENCH:So are you saying that you'd like - Ms Lagana is suggesting that a date around 20 March would be sufficient, but you think it might be prudent to adjourn it ever longer than that, is that what you think?

DEFENDANT:No I think, well the Magna Carter says that to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice. I think these delays that have been going on are a violation of that. I would suggest to the court that if the proceedings are going to go ahead with the contempt of court, that these charges be withdrawn.

BENCH:To be withdrawn. In terms of putting you through unnecessary court proceedings and being fair to you, that's how I see the DPP wanting to act at this stage because - I can't force their hand to withdraw them Mr Wilson, I've got no power to do that, you seem to be somebody who is very keen on rights and people asserting their rights and you understand that people can only do what they have the power or the right to do and the court cannot force the Director of Public Prosecution's hand as far as that is concerned.

All I can consider now is the adjournment application, and what they're saying is that it may very well be, because those incidents or both matters aris~ out of the one factual situation, that these will be considered after matters.

What that means is, there's normally a substantial matter that is considered, such as the contempt, and these are matters that would not normally proceed if they are successful with the contempt charge. Do you understand that? Do you understand--

DEFENDANT: I understand but I disagree with the fact that this is in an intolerable delay.

BENCH:Have you written to the Director and pointed that out and said that these matters should be withdrawn, because that is something you can do now between now the adjourn date. Have you done that? I don't wish to see any correspondence Mr Wilson because I can't buy into that, I'm only just asking you whether you've done it?

DEFENDANT: No I haven't asked that they withdraw their--

BENCH:Alright, that's perhaps something that you can do in the interim. But what I propose to do now Mr Wilson is to allow that adjournment, not simply for their sake but because also as far as I am concerned, the way that the matter is proceeding it is fairest for you to see how this other matter goes so that you're not in double jeopardy.

I propose to allow that adjournment, I think we'd be looking at the end of March would we not. If that doesn't suit you Mr Wilson I'll give you a little longer time to try and accommodate you. But does the end of March suit you?

DEFENDANT: I can't see the other matter being finished by the end of March.

BENCH: No, and you're prediction could very well be right, having heard what you had to say here today.
But what we might do is, adjourn it now until 27 March Mr Wilson. Do you want Mr Wilson here on that day? We could excuse him and then he doesn't have to come to court, unless of course he wants to?

DEFENDANT: I would like to be part of all proceedings.

BENCH: Alright Mr Wilson, I just thought that might be something that you would have been happy not to come on that occasion, and they would have answered your letter by then. But get that letter off to them if you want them to consider withdrawing the matters, and no doubt you'd have an answer between now and then in any event.

What is the situation with bail? Bail to continue? Your bail will continue Mr Wilson.

ADJOURNED TO 27 MARCH 1998 AT 9.30

LOCAL COURT
DOWNING CENTRE
MAGISTRATE:W BRYDON

FRIDAY 27 MARCH 1998

POLICE v JOHN WILSON

CHARGE Threaten injury

Ms Lagana for the Informant
Defendant appeared unrepresented
Defendant of f bail

BENCH:This matter is ready to proceed?

LAGANA:Yes your Worship, I appear for the DPP in the matter of John Wilson.

BENCH:What is the situation in relation to that, there was
-you're Mr Wilson. Are you represented Mr Wilson?

DEFENDANT:By myself.

LAGANA:The situation is that Mr Wilson has contempt proceedings pending in the Supreme Court which arise out of the same facts in this matter, and it is the view of the Director that, given the continuing delays in those proceedings, that the Director will be seeking to withdraw the information in respect of the criminal charges today.

BENCH:I understand there's two matters before me today, that's one allegation under section 32.6.1(d), that's an allegation on 5 September 1997 did cause detriment to a judicial officer, Murray AJ, by throwing a missile at him. There's a further allegation under the same section 32.6.1(d), on 5 September 1997 did cause injury to a person towit Murray AJ on account of a thing lawfully done by the said Murray AJ as a judicial officer.

They're the two allegations before the court today?

LAGANA:Yes.

BENCH:Do you agree with that Mr Wilson?

DEFENDANT:That's the ones, yes.

BENCH:The prosecution are seeking leave to withdrawing.

LAGANA:Yes.

BENCH:Any objection to the prosecution withdrawing those matters?
DEFENDANT:No, I'm just seeking a trial by jury so either charge, I don't mind which one is--

BENCH:No they're seeking to withdraw both charges.

DEFENDANT:Yeah, but there's the other charge in the Supreme Court.

BENCH:That's something that I'm afraid I can't concern myself with. The only thing I've got before me Mr Wilson at this stage is two charges which I've indicated to you, and the application is to withdraw those two charges.

Do you have any objections to that course?

DEFENDANT:The only thing I am considering sir is, I'm in the Court of Appeal now, appealing my right to a trial by jury. In this matter, the matters have been set down for paper committal for trial by jury.

BENCH:But they're not proceeding with it. I would have thought under those circumstances you - they're seeking to withdraw the proceedings against you in the Local Court.

DEFENDANT:I am not guilty. Yes.

BENCH:Alright. Do you have any objections to the withdrawing of proceedings against you?

DEFENDANT: No, I don't feel I have any option.

BENCH:On the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to both matters before me today there is an application to withdraw the proceedings. I'll mark the papers withdrawn and dismissed in relation to both matters.

DEFENDANT:Can I have a print out of that sir?

BENCH:You can get a result from the court, yes.

DEFENDANT:A result.

BENCH:They will give you a result sheet if you ask them at the office.

Home Latest News Press Release The Book Newsletters Links