Your Honour I seek leave to appeal the decision of Judge Boyce in the Kingaroy District court on 22 March 99.
Your Honour although I meet the criteria for legal aid, I have been unable to obtain it in order to present my case. I therefore propose to rely on the principle that I have the right to present my case in person. I believe it is the duty of this Honourable court to guide me and not simply reject my submissions on the grounds that it has not been presented in the correct manner.
Your Honour I am aggrieved by the decision because –
Judge Boyce has failed to adequately justify his reasons for stating that the relevant provisions of Magna Carta have long since been displaced by local statutes made by the Parliament of Queensland.
Surely I am entitled to know what the law is so that I can plan my actions accordingly. How am I to adequately appeal against his judgement when no basis for a lawful judgement was given?
Judge Boyce Has stated that the Magna Carta is totally irrelevant as far as the offences provided by the Weapons Act of 1990.
Judge Boyce said that:- "The appellant also relies on the Magna Carta. It is not necessary to consider the Magna Carta in any detail. Whatever may have been the provisions of the Magna Carta, the relevant provisions have long since been displaced by local statutes made by the Parliament of Queensland. Accordingly anything that is in the Magna Carta that is said to bear on the offences provided by the Weapons Act of 1990 is totally irrelevant."
Your Honour, I understand that, Judicial notice shall be taken of all Acts of Parliament and all regulations. Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights Act 1688 are both confirmed by the Imperial Acts Applications Act. Therefore the judiciary must take judicial notice of them. I don't believe Judge Boyce QC did this and that is an error and consequently there was a miscarriage of justice in my conviction.
It would be inconceivable that the Magna Carta and the 38 subsequent confirmations of it were not intended to mean anything. Judge Boyce seems to have simply dismissed them out of hand.
He should have fully considered the spirit, meaning and INTENT of those constitutional documents when acting in judgment.
Judge Boyce has decided that the word "may" in legislation means that the Magistrate "may" do as he chooses to the detriment of the appellant. Judge Boyce said: "Section 161 of the Weapons act 1990 provides that, " A proceeding for an offence against the act other than section 65 may be prosecuted in a summary way under the Justices act. In the circumstances there, there is no right to trial by jury in the matter. Accordingly the learned magistrate was entitled to hear and determine these proceedings in a summary way. Section 19 of the Justices act provides that, " where an offence under any act is not declared to be an indictable offence, the matter may be heard and determined by the magistrates court in a summary manner."
Surely the word "may" can be interpreted for the benefit of the appellant with more justification given the requirements of Justice. Surely it is more just to grant a trial by Jury when requested, than to reject it.
Judge Boyce has given inadequate reasons for his rejection of my arguments. Surely I am entitled to a reasoned rebuttal of what appear to be valid arguments. Surely it shows disdain by the Judge for Justice when arguments put by the appellant are ignored.
Your Honour, the respondents arguments as to why leave to appeal should not be granted are woeful, they expended 52 words on a case which seeks to overturn the New Gun laws.
Firstly- The respondent says that I should not be given leave to appeal because I did not complain about the sentence imposed before the district court.
Your honour. I did so in that I am opposing ANY sentence. If I had been fined one dollar I would be opposed because in order to impose that sentence I have to be found guilty. I truly believe I am not guilty of any offence because I do not accept the legal validity of the New Gun laws
Secondly- The respondent says the appeal has no chance of success. Surely this is up to the court to decide AFTER hearing my arguments. How can my chances of success be judged before my arguments are presented. No doubt Eddie Mabo was told the same before before he unexpectedly achieved success in the Court with the Mabo decision. Likewise Nicholas Toonen was no doubt told the same until his successful court action forced Tasmania to change its laws on homosexuals
Your Honour there a community perception that is one law for the wealthy and powerful and another for the poor.
On TV I see people like Senator Mal Colston not be charged for allegedly stealing tens of thousand of dollars. I see the member of Parliament, Peter Costello, and other republicans publicly breaking their oaths of allegiance to the Queen of Australia and not be brought to account.
I see the wealthy and privileged go to court on assault, tax evasion, corruption, or theft of millions and they get off or face minimal penalties.
Yet I who oppose what I believe to be an unjust law by breaking it must plead to be heard.
You honour I am a poor citizen attempting to achieve a redress of a wrong done to me and fellow gun owners by Parliament Why is it that I am expected to obey the laws of thieves and traitors?
Why is it that the laws that I rely on for my freedoms have been made invalid along with the laws that should have found my superiors accountable for their misdeeds?
Your Honour I cannot afford high priced legal assistance to find loopholes to ensure that my case is heard. I must rely on the court to see that not only is justice done but is seen to be done.
FOLLOWS
This is the part of my main outline that I was able to present in my reply to something the respondents barrister said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However I believe that the State of Queensland although competent to amend statute law received from Britain or NSW is not competent to pass laws opposing the Common laws confirmed by the enduring enactments of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
I would characterise the attempt to usurp these two as similar in character to the law system of the Nazis. To quote from the book "What is Law" by Suri Ratnapala,
''....A principle of chemistry will remain valid even if it is re-classified within some other field of learning. On the contrary, a rule of law will be invalidated if it is found to lack the attributes which characterise law. The Nazi regime in Germany enacted many unjust statutes such as those which deprived Jews of their German nationality. They had the appearances of law: But post-war West German courts invalidated some of these on the ground that they offended fundamental justice"...
There are laws, and there are "laws." Just because a law may be passed in conformance with the written constitution of the commonwealth does not mean it is constitutional.
I ask you to decline to recognise as valid, laws that conflict with long standing fundamentals of constitutional and fundamental rights contained in Magna Carta.
I believe that precedents opposed to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights can be covered by the term stare decisis - a doctrine giving to precedent the authority of established law.
However, Chief Justice Brandeis said in Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34 (1927) 42 " Stare Decisis is not a universal inexorable command. It does not command that we err again when we have occasion to pass upon a different statute." (1)
A decision is not binding on a subsequent Court simply because it was made in the past. Courts are not bound as a matter of law by the doctrine of precedent. Some decisions are to be regarded as persuasive rather than strictly binding. (9)
I believe that it is necessary to distinguish the intent of the originators of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights in allowing freedoms, from subsequent decisions that may seem to limit those freedoms. Such a distinction would allow a more restrictive scope of interpretation of those precedents and laws. In such an important issue as trial by jury it is not unlikely that they got it wrong.
I ask you to consider the validity of the Weapons Act and whether it was enacted properly and with due process.
Given the important constitutional principles, discrimination and civil rights I am arguing, I ask that if you cannot give me a trial by Jury that you send my case to a higher court (1)
Your Honour the Queen has sworn to God to uphold the Magna Carta. Judges have sworn to God and the Queen to uphold the Common law
I ask you to fulfil your oath to God and the Queen and give me my rights to a trial by Jury
Links to other sites on the Web
© 1997 marsiegen@burcom.com.au
Get your own Free Home Page