OUTLINE OF ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENT with reply
RESPONDENT The appellant was convicted and sentenced on 3 counts personate to
section 50 of the Weapons act 1990. Section 161(1) of the Weapons act
provides that a proceedings for any offence under this act, other than
section 65, may be prosecuted in a summary way under the Justices act
1886 act. There is no provision for proceedings brought under section 50
of the Weapons act to be by way of indictment.
APPELANT Answer> Summary proceedings are consent proceedings in all Courts and
unless the consent of the defendant is obtained, it is the law that a
jury be empanelled under the Imperial Acts Application Act 1984
Schedule. The Magna Carta. To say otherwise is to offend section 204
Criminal Code of Queensland and is an indictable offence.
RESPONDENT Lehane: Section 19 of the Justices Act 1886 provides that where an
offence under any act is not declared to be an indictable offence, the
matter may be heard and determined by a magistrates court in a summary
manner.
APPELANT Answer: "May" is a word of decided judicial import. If the discretion
is not consented to, it is the duty of the Court to treat all offences
over 3 months as indictable offences to avoid the stigma of corruption
overhanging the Court. The Criminal Code Section 204 obliges the
magistrate to set the matter down on the request of any defendant for a
jury trial, or offend section 200 Criminal Code. Refusal of Public
officer to perform duty .
It is the duty of a magistrate under the Imperial Acts Application
Act to grant a jury trial on request by any defendent.
RESPONDENT Lehane: In the respect of the appellants argument that that he was
entitled to a trial by jury personate to the provisions of chapter 39 of
the Magna Carta, the respondents argument is that the Magna Carta does
not override the Justices act 1886 or the Weapons act 1990 and has been
displaced by these statutes.
R v Walker (1989) 2 Qd R 79
Re Skyring (1994) 68 ALJR 618
APPELANT answer- This argument is spurious. The Magna Carta was reenacted and declared to be the law in 1984. It is a Constitutional enactment and as such can only be altered by a referendum under the Queensland Constitution
Act 1867. Courts cannot find as fact that a Statute is not a law.
For the edification of the learned Mr Lehane, the active Magna Carta
section is Chapter 29 of the Act of 1297. The Imperial Acts
application Act 1984 declares it to be so. It is res judicata.
RESPONDENT Lehane: In the respect of the appellantís argument that the state of
Queensland must obey the laws of the Commonwealth, the respondentís
argument is that there is no inconsistency between the Queensland state
law and Commonwealth law in the present case.
APPELANT Answer: This is a broad unsubstantiated statement. Mr Lehane is in
Contempt of the Commonwealth Constitution by making this assertion,
because the state of Queensland is just as bound as the Commonwealth by
the Constitution by reference to Section 5 of the preamble to the
Constitution, Section 51 Placitum XXXI of the Constitution binds the State of
Queensland to provide just terms before it confiscates any property from
any Commonwealth citizen. Just because a person is a Queenslander does
not deprive him of the protection of the Constitution.
RESPONDENT Lehane: Further the respondents argument is that there is also no
inconsistency between the relevant state law and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Australia.
APPELANT Answer. The respondent is irresponsible to say this as the state law
now does not provide just terms for acquisition. It did but does not now
do so and as such is now unconstitutional.
RESPONDENT Lehane: In Respect of the appellants argument that the court had a duty to adjourn the matter personate (Pursuant) to section 78B of the
Commonwealth Judiciary act 1903, the respondents argument is that no
notice was required personate (pursuant) to section 78B, as it was not
established that the present case involved a matter arising under the
constitution or involving its interpretation. The respondent argument is
that a cause does not ìinvolveî a matter arising under the constitution
or involving its interpretation merely because someone asserts it does.
APPELANT Answer: The respondent is again exhibiting a basic ignorence of the law, in that all persons are equal before the law and if one person who is equal to another asserts that the Constitution applies and another asserts that
it does not, then a justiciable dispute arises within the original
jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia by reference to Section 30
Judiciary Act 1903, and it is a dispute involving the contract between
the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia made for the
benefit of the Australian citizenry. It is a basic right of all citizens
to a jury trial in such a dispute.
Section 58, Judiciary Act 1903, allows the applicant to bring an
action for breach of contract against the State of Queensland because
Statutes are basically either contracts of record enacted by the
Parliament, or facts found by the Parliament in their collective
judgement, that no Court is competent to ignore or find contrary to.
The State of Queensland is in this matter, acting de facto for the
Federal government, and as such must exercise the Judicial power of the
Commonwealth in accordance with the Constitution and try the matter with
a Judge only by reference to section 79 Constitition, which says: The
Federal jurisdiction of any Court may be exercised by such number of
judges as the parliament prescribes.
If the defendent requires a jury, the Court may not be constituted
without a jury unless the defendant consents by reference to Sections 51
and 259 Supreme Court Act 1995. This Act is of full force in Federal
jurisdiction by reference to section 118 of the Constitution which says:
Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth, to
the laws, the public Acts and records and the judicial proceedings of
every State.
A magistrate is not a judge and as such cannot exercise a federal
judicial function at all.
The argument of the respondent is riddled with half truths and basic
legal errors, and the matter can be easily and justly settled by setting
it down for trial in the District Court, de novo, with a jury.
Signed by Martin Essenberg in reply to Michael Lehane.
Signed by Michael Lehane Crown Prosecutor
Links to other sites on the Web
© 1997 marsiegen@burcom.com.au
Get your own Free Home Page