Dear Fellow Australians,
On Friday, 16th April 1999, the High Court have overruled Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights, Petition of Right, Australian Constitution and a swag of other legislation when they dismissed my Application for Special Leave to Appeal against the New South Wales Supreme Court's denial of the right to trial by jury on 16th March 1999.
They have also overruled the WILL OF THE PEOPLE which was recorded at the referendum of 1988 when the voters overwhelmingly rejected the politicians' proposed alteration to section 80 of the Constitution to exclude trial by jury for contempt of court and court martial.
There can be no more serious threat to liberty and democracy than treachery from judges.
For the story leading up to Friday the 16th, please go to my website of http://rightsandwrong.com.au where you will find the text of my book "BANKS AND JUDGES", or, if you want a copy of the book itself, please send $15-00 to PO Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW, 2151.
If you find one passage in the transcript strange, it is because I forgot to read the full paragraph from Lysander Spooner's essay which should go: "Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" - a barrier against the tyranny and opporession of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.". My apologies.
Please relay this e-mail and/or the attachment on to everyone you can - because everyone should be aware of their predicament and know the height, depth, breadth and power of the forces against them. It is a true crisis.
John Wilson.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry Sydney
No S127 of 1998
Between -
JOHN WILSON
Applicant
and
THE
PROTHONOTARY
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
GAUDRON J
CALLINAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 16 APRIL 1999, AT 2.17 PM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
1. GAUDRON J: Yes, Mr Wilson, you appear for yourself, do you?
2. MR J. WILSON: Yes, your Honour.
3. GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you.
4. MR T.L. BUDDIN, the servants of the Crown: May it please the Court,
I appear on behalf of the respondent (instructed by the Crown Solicitor
for New South Wales)
5. GAUDRON J: Yes, Mr Wilson.
6. MR WILSON: I would like to start off with a few words as an
introduction. I have made copies of these words, which I would like to
read to the Court. Would your Honours like copies to follow the words?
7. GAUDRON J: We have a transcript, thank you.
8. MR WILSON: OK. Contempt of court is court, whether it occurs inside
or outside any court in the land. Contempt of court is the interference
with the administration of justice, and is an offence against common
law. Common law is a law of the States and it is a law of the
Commonwealth. Section 80 of the Australian Constitution guarantees
trial by jury on indictment of any offence against any law of the
Commonwealth. Indictment includes an information and a presentment.
There are no State laws which preclude trial by jury for contempt of
court, and if there were, they would be invalid under section 109 of
the Australian Constitution, and the covering clause of the
Constitution Act, UK, says that:
9. This Act, and all the laws made by the Parliament of the
Commonwealth under the Constitution , shall be binding on the courts,
judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth,
notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;
10. Covering clause 6 says: "The States" .... are part of the
Commonwealth.
11. As and Australia I am a subject of the Queen, and am entitled to
the protection of the Crown and the charters such as Magna Carta, which
guarantees the inalienable right of trial by jury. This right is
further protected by the other charters of the Crown, such as the Bill
of Rights 1688 and the Petition of Right 1627. These rights and
freedoms have been fought for and died for by countless generations of
men and women. Lest we forget. These charters are listed in the New
South Wales Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 and an offence against
them is punishable by imprisonment.
12. English common law and the rights and freedoms granted by the
charters of the Crown are our heritage because we are a constitutional
monarchy, and we are under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. These rights and freedoms are yours and mine.
They belong to our children and our grandchildren. They belong to your
children and grandchildren.
13. When what is now the United States of America broke away from the
Crown, they were forced to draw up the Declaration of Independence to
ensure the continuance of these same rights and freedoms, and their
system of justice is founded on, and reliant upon, those charters of
the Crown.
14. The role of the jury in the protection of liberty has been
emphasised by numerous authorities and the High Court has the power to
direct trial by jury in any suit. This case is of national importance
because (a) it is in defence of Australians' rights, and (b) it exposes
the seriousness of judicial corruption. I have documented my
experiences through the courts over the last three years and ordinary
people are amazed and horrified at what has happened.
15. Contempt of court is a serious offence and it is the only vehicle to
bring the seriousness of judicial corruption before the people. A
conviction for contempt of court is personally very serious to me
because it would mean deregistration as a dentist and the destruction of
my livelihood, which in turn would mean the dispossession of my home
and the devastation of my family.
16. Trial by jury is trial by the country. With our heritage and the
very survival of democracy at stake, the people must be educated and
learn what is happening.
17. Judges are academics, and the weakest element in our community.
They must be protected against subversion and must never be given
absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence,
corruption and treachery. They have sworn to do right, but when they
fail they must be accountable to the people. Without trial by jury for
contempt of court, judicial corruption knows no bounds. That is my
introduction. I have also filed ---
18. GAUDRON J: Mr Wilson, you must address yourself to the question of
error in the court below.
19. MR WILSON: That is my establishment, the fact that Justice Hidden
has denied the right to trial by jury, and that is the error. It is a
guarantee under Magna Carta and Magna Carta is in force in Australia.
That is the error. And what I am appealing for now is that Justice
Hidden's ruling that Magna Carta has been overridden should be struck
out, and that I am allowed my right to trial by jury.
20. The importance of trial by jury has been emphasised by many
authorities. I have, and you have, the case of Brown v The Queen. In
that the judges in the High Court emphasise the important role that
trial by jury has in the administration of justice. On page 179 Chief
Justice Gibbs said:
21. The requirement that there should be trial by jury was not merely
arbitrary and pointless. It must be inferred that the purpose of the
section must be to protect the accused -- in other words, to provide
the accused with a "safeguard against the corrupt or over-zealous
prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge"
22. He goes on to say: the jury is a bulwark of liberty, a protection
against tyranny and arbitrary oppression, and an important means of
securing a fair and impartial trial. It is true that the jury system is
thought to have collateral advantages (e.g., it involves ordinary
members of the public in the judicial process and may make some
decisions more acceptable to the public) -
23. This is a common theme in the High Court.
24. GAUDRON J: Yes, but now, Mr Wilson, the procedures for dealing
with contempt are dealt with in the rules of the Supreme Court, are
they not?
25. MR WILSON: They are dealt with in a number of courts. They are
dealt with in the High Court as well.
26. GAUDRON J: Well, so far as you are concerned, the procedures are
dealt with in the Supreme Court Rules, are they not?
MR WILSON: No. In fact, I have a letter from the Supreme Court of New
South Wales - I am sorry I did not put this one in - but it is from the
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court.
The second paragraph says:
27. There is no State legislation which makes contempt of court an
offence.
28. GAUDRON J: Yes, but the procedures for dealing with contempt are
set out, are they not, in the Supreme Court Rules?
29. MR WILSON: Yes, and I can find nowhere where they preclude trial by
jury.
30. GAUDRON J: Do they say you can have trial by jury?
31. MR WILSON: It is my right to have trial by jury, and I am demanding
that I have my right.
32. GAUDRON J: Well, that is what you have to establish. You cannot
simply assert it, Mr Wilson, you have to establish it.
33. MR WILSON: Trial by jury for contempt of court is the will of the
people. There was a referendum in 1988 whereby the politicians tried to
change section 80 of the Constitution to exclude trial by jury for
contempt of court, and the people said --
34. GAUDRON J: That is contempt of a court exercising federal
jurisdiction.
35. MR WILSON: Contempt of court is contempt of court whether it is any
court of the land, inside or out. In the Constitution it does not say
anything to the contrary. Contempt of court is contempt of court, and
the people expressed themselves very clearly by an overwhelming majority
that trial by jury shall not be exempt for contempt of court. You have
the voting figures there, you have the proposed alteration and that was
rejected overwhelmingly by the people. It is the will of the people
that there should be trial by jury for contempt of court.
36. The other side, the opponents, quote Willesee back in 1984 in which
the judges then said that the practice of trial by jury for contempt of
court was "obsolete". According to Magna Carta, the rights have been
granted forever. So something that has been granted forever can never
become obsolete. And also, in the Bill of Rights and also in the
Petition of Right referring to - in fact the Petition of Right actually
restates Magna Carta. There is a section where it says: that no freeman
may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or
liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any
manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the
law of the land. and the law of the land is the Constitution, which
guarantees trial by jury.
37. GAUDRON J: Now, would you like to read section 80 of the
Constitution, Mr Wilson?
38. MR WILSON: Read section 80?
39. GAUDRON J: Yes, that is what - and see exactly what it relates to.
40. MR WILSON: I will read section 80 of the Constitution. It says:The
trail in indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth
shall be by jury --
41. GAUDRON J: That is right, "against any law of the Commonwealth".
You are charged with contempt of court of the Supreme Court of New South
Wales.
42. MR WILSON: Which is part of the Commonwealth.
43. GAUDRON J: Well, it may be part of the Commonwealth, but it deals
with --
44. MR WILSON: You cannot exclude New South Wales from the Commonwealth.
45. GAUDRON J: --- it deals with a distinct area of judicial power. It
involves a distinct area of judicial power.
46. CALLINAN J: Mr Wilson, both the Commonwealth --
47. MR WILSON: I am a bit hard of hearing and I ask you to speak louder.
48. CALLINAN J: Both the Commonwealth and the States of Australia can
make laws.
49. MR WILSON: And any law of a State --
50. CALLINAN J: No, no, you just listen to me for a moment ---
51. MR WILSON: -- which is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth
is invalid under section 109.
52. CALLINAN J: No, Mr Wilson, you are not understanding what I am
saying. They each can make laws within their own areas of power and the
States have power to make laws for the regulation of the State courts,
and that is, in effect, what you are charged with, breaking a law
made for the regulation of proceedings in the State courts.
53. MR WILSON: And if that law is inconsistent with a law of the
Commonwealth, that is invalid. And as reinforced by the Bill of Rights
and the Petition of Right, which says: noe Declarations, Judgements,
Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the
foresaid Premises ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into
Consequence or Example.
54. So, the proceedings with Willesee where they said that - which is
"to the Prejudice of the people"- is null and void. And also in the
Bill of Rights it says the same thing: that the awards, doings and
proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises,
shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example -
55. So any time a court tries to disadvantage or take rights away from
the people, those rulings are of no example, they are invalid.
56. There have been many learned people talk about the importance of
trial by jury. I would refer to Chapter 1 of this essay by Lysander
Spooner, and there they go to the importance, the fact that trial by
jury is: a "palladium of liberty" - a barrier against the tyranny and
oppression of the government - they are mere tools in its hands, for
carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to
have executed.
57. So, in other words, only by putting such an important issue as
contempt of court to the people can there be justice, and the court is
purely here to administer justice, whether it is the High Court,
Supreme Court or any court.
58. So, also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the
United Nations Charter, also emphasises the importance of having "a
fair ... and impartial tribunal". I cannot get a fair or impartial
tribunal from any judge because I have found in the last three years,
as I have put in this leaflet, which I have also submitted to the
Court, that in my experience "Australian judges are liars, criminals
and traitors", and I have listed their offence. I have gone into more
detail in the publication which you also have before you in chapter 12,
"What Crimes Have the Judges Committed". Now I,list there the offence
such as "concealing a serious offence", "...perverting the course of
justice", "Judicial corruption". And there is no way other than trial
by jury can I get an impartial tribunal.
59. So, fundamentally, the Constitution, section 80, guarantees
trial by jury for any offence against any law of the Commonwealth and
New South Wales is part of the Commonwealth. The will of the people
must be respected. The will of the people was expressed in the
referendum of 1988 in which they overwhelmingly rules out any question
that contempt of court shall be exempt from trial by jury.
60. So I can only say that in the interests of justice, there can only
be trial by jury in my case. Thank you.
61. GAUDRON J: Thank you, Mr Wilson. We need not hear you, Mr Buddin.
62. The applicant's argument fails to distinguish between State laws
regulating procedures in State courts and offence against the laws of
the Commonwealth. Section 80 of the Constitution has nothing to say as
to the former. It follows that the decision of the Court of Appeal is
correct and special leave is refused.
63. MR WILSON: Could I interrupt hers? Can the Court prove to me
legally that I have no entitlement to trial by jury?
64. GAUDRON J: Do you seek costs, Mr Buddin?
65. MR BUDDIN: No, your Honour.
66. GAUDRON J: Special leave is refused, Mr Wilson, and the Court will
now adjourn.
AT 2:36 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
Links to other sites on the Web
© 1997 marsiegen@burcom.com.au
Get your own Free Home Page