Azriel v Sfhir and Anor

[1997] HCATrans 327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S76 of 1996

B e t w e e n -

ELIEZER AZRIEL

Applicant

and

PETER SFHIR

First Respondent

MAGISTRATE J.A. BAILEY

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

BRENNAN CJ
TOOHEY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 1997, AT 12.09 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BRENNAN CJ:   You are Mr Azriel.

MR E. AZRIEL:   I am Mr Eliezer Azriel.

MR D.J. HOOKE:   May it please the Court, I appear for the first respondent.  (instructed by Beilby Poulden Costello)

BRENNAN CJ:   The Deputy Registrar certifies that he has been informed that the second respondent in this matter does not wish to be represented at the hearing of the application for special leave to appeal and will submit to any order of the Court save as to costs. 

Yes, Mr Azriel.

MR AZRIEL:   Just two cases which I have to give you.  I seek the last chance to get justice according to truth.  That is why I follow from Local Court to here because absolutely disgraceful, I was been insulting my dignity because what happened, all Local Court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, even the hearing to give security costs to this man when I take it two weeks ago, I feel very insulted.  I have been Captain Army Commando Israeli Paratrooper.  I am 60 years in two weeks.  I have been former International Congress.....for Children.  I have been.....  I been champion marathon  Israel Olympic.....  They did not believe me one single word what I did every single hearing what I been.  They believe the man who had five accidents before my accident.  It is proved by....., it is proved by subpoena I got to the court.  They believed every single word, why, because I am not swear on the Bible.  The Local Court, he said, the Registrar, you do not know what he said, he believe him because he swear under oath.  That was all the question here. 

Now, the second one, I have been to court to represent myself.  I was the plaintiff here.  I want to represent myself for my case.  I had accident.  He caused me damage to my car.  According to law I have to take the case to get the money for the damage.  I been there as plaintiff.  This solicitor, he did want $1,000.  I do not speak very well English.  I represent myself.  He bring me cross-claim about his claim for his damage which never ever happen with my car.  I can prove it for everywhere.  Not only that, the cross‑claim, you read the cross‑claim you got 26 photograph which are attached to cross‑claim.  I never received these photograph.  I have not seen it.  How this cross‑claim be, I give them every time I give all my photograph, read photograph - anything I give to this lawyer, the adversary.  They give me cross‑claim.  The Local Court did all his judgment with 26 photograph.  I did not receive it.  They told me that is natural justice.  Just 5 minutes before I start the hearing.

TOOHEY J:   Mr Azriel, I am not clear what you are saying.  Are you saying that there were 26 photographs produced in evidence?

MR AZRIEL:   He never give to me.  If you read cross‑claim page, it mention ‑ ‑ ‑

TOOHEY J:   But were they produced to the magistrate?

MR AZRIEL:   Yes, they give to the magistrate but not give it to me at all.  He give me cross‑claim 5 minute before the case.  He never give me 26 photograph.  His explanation, Mr James, in his cross‑claim, page 012, he go from No 1 to 26, refer to 26 photographs.  I never ever received 26 photographs.  I never ever receive 26 photograph.  It is absolutely disgraceful because I have to prepare my case.  I been to the case.  They ask me if I can start.  Was some confusion at beginning.  When I start the case Local Court, I ask for subpoena when I pay $50 to allow me to give me something about their previous accident how it happened.  He got about four or five accident before.  I ask the Registrar.  They since..... Registrar.  He give me to show me.  Between this time Mr James, the solicitor for the adversary, he start to talk to the magistrate, starts to argue something.  The magistrate ask me if you want to start.  I said, “Yes, please.”  Did not ask me if you get the cross‑claim, did not ask me if you want to adjourn the cross‑claim, if you understand what it mean the cross‑claim.  He saw I even understand what it mean the cross‑claim.  Did not give me chance to prepare my case.

What happened after the hearing, I found out absolutely disgraceful hearing.  He did not believe me nothing, he did not look any photograph what I give to him, all I had, to show him my damage, the drawing of the accident what happened.  He did not take care about the explanation what I give to him.  In fact, I am expertise.  I am qualified engineer.  Before going to study film academy in France, I  been, okay, five years engineer.  I am toolmaker, I have been captain Army, I have lot of -  I go to high school.  That mean I know what that mean, check something in the car.

What happened with the accident?  When he knocked me he ran away to another street, down the street.  I been shocked, I did not have chance even to check my car what happened, to check the level , how he knocked me.  But I found out how.  After the hearing I lost, because I did not go for his damage when I been charged for his damage, I found out I took the first expert.  When you build house you go to architect to get plan.  You go to council to get approval.  You go to builder to build the house.  You go to electricity to put the power.  You go to plumber to put the water.  You not go to shoemaker to ask him what will happen.  That is what I did.

After I got cross‑claim, after hearing, I did appeal.  I went to the best expert in New South Wales.  He is lecturer in New South Wales University.  You got the expert’s report there.  I ask him, he come with me, spent four hours, cost me money.  He give beautiful report.  I did my experiments too.  I took another car, exactly similar with his car, with bull bar, everything similar.

TOOHEY J:   This was after the case had finished?

MR AZRIEL:   After the case, because I have no chance to do it before.  If I got cross‑claim before, I will do it.  That way I have no chance.  I been there.  I take the photograph.  If you look at the photograph there, I give you the original one because only good copy.  All the set of the photograph here, please, that is the original one, because they are only copy.

TOOHEY J:   Mr Azriel, did anyone explain to you that even if there had not been a cross‑claim, the other driver, the defendant in your action, was entitled to call whatever evidence was relevant to answer your claim.

MR AZRIEL:   What happened here ‑ ‑ ‑

TOOHEY J:   Just listen to me.  I am just trying to explain to you that all this evidence could have come in in answer to your claim, not just the cross‑claim.

MR AZRIEL:   When I been there, I want to explain it, to my damage.  I did not prepare my separate damage because I know it was not my car.  It can be moved, my car.

TOOHEY J:   I understand that about his damage.  But all the circumstances surrounding the accident:  the photographs as to the scene and all that sort of thing, that could all have come in in answer to your claim, even if there had not been a cross‑claim.

MR AZRIEL:   If I get the cross‑claim, will prepare my case properly, you know, because I said, all right, I go to damage, for my damage.  If I lost, if he said No, that is the risk I took.  But if I got the cross‑claim beginning, I would prepare my case according to the expertise, to my expertise, photograph, I take everything.  But the Local Court, he drive 70 kilometres an hour.  I got photograph here, if you see it please, if you see this, the line, what written here, there is only 15 metre for pedestrian crossing line that accident happen.  You go to drawing and you can see it, exactly here, the accident happen because I can see in photograph.  He didn’t look nothing, no consideration, even look at photograph.

BRENNAN CJ:   Mr Azriel, I think I should ask you to think about another aspect of this.  As you know, there are courts at various levels in Australia and you have been through most of those courts.  Now, it is the job of the courts at first instance, when you first go to court, to decide cases.  Then you can take a case on appeal.  But when you come to the level of this Court, because we have a lot of cases and because we have to decide the law that is to apply throughout Australia, the only cases we ever allow in are cases that have some special question of law in them.  Now, that is the problem you face.  Do you understand me?

MR AZRIEL:   Yes, some.  I give you two cases there.  Now, I just show what happen about cross‑claim.  Now, I got here, because his Honour Justice Kirby was in Israel, he write article in Sydney here, he write about justice in Israel, he is not here, but I give you what he said in Sydney how long come from Israel.  He said, .....to decide justice.  If I bring Israel this case I never would lose this case because I got example for great judge from High Court in Israel article about natural justice.  I got from my sister.  She work in company L.....  He give exactly two cases an example of natural justice, McCarthy and Bentley, what I give you the copy.  When he say about even the judge he mention about God.  When God ask Adam who tell you you are nude.  How you know you nude?  He ask Adam.  He give him to defend himself before he give judgment.  When Cain kill Abel he ask him, your blood of your brother cry me in the sky.  Who tell you to kill him?  After he give him the punishment what he give him, he give him chance to defend himself. 

I know you can read the case, but if your Honour I will tell you just for Bentley, every right of the person, even the value of leaf of garlic, you have the chance, you have the right to defend himself according to the law.  As an example, he said, when you want to sit with some great man’s table, you are allowed to sit but only if the man he said to you, you not allowed to sit, to sit against him.  You do natural justice.  That is natural justice.  When you read other case unbelievable, McCarthy.  Another case where justice was - just because the secretary of the clerk was not in the room of the three judge when they appeared to get their judgment, they dismissed the case.  Why?  Because they see maybe that the thinking of the man who was inside the clerk, because it belonged to another company, same company involved with civil case.  Maybe that influenced them.  The fact they did not consider nothing with him.  That is indicate nothing wrong with justice.  That example, perfect natural justice.

I get cross‑claim five minutes before.  I have no speaking very well.  You can see the transcript.  Every second line - what they say - not understanding.  Every second line there.  How the magistrate can judge something if you not understand.  If you want, I read you article what that mean be judged.  Here, here, what the quality of justice not only to have Queen Counsel of the law or law degree.  What specific why?  To be judge.  To understand people, to be nicely, to understand the world what going on.  It to think what we are doing.  Even in the hearing he knew the judge will find, he have to think everything for the most positive thing to make the balance of justice.  That is the role of the judge.  What the magistrate did?  Even Justice Grove, what he did?  He tell me it not matter if the cross‑claim was there six months before.  No.  If I got the cross‑claim for this, I will prepare my case properly.  I could not do it, I ask somebody.  I go legal aid.  They will help me to prepare my case.  It does natural justice.  That is why I come here because natural justice.

No matter how much cost money.  Because not involve much money nobody can get it.  No, even one cent.  Even God, one cent in his Bible written, .....Hebrew, that mean justice and only justice to do even one cent.  I can explain you something you do not know.  According to the Bible, I study cabbala.  When the judge judging not according to truth, only what happened to the judge, because his justice against God, not against me.  I not care about money.  He will give me back.  Because not justice against me, justice against God.   He does the role of justice, natural justice.  He have to judge according to law, according to truth.  That is most important for justice.  No matter what the world said, no matter about that, I know you got the law.  Every country got law, everything.  But in fact you see here clearly, clearly, clearly, the cross‑claim in five minutes before.  I could not prepare my case.  This matter here was not in front of the judge or the magistrate.  If we take this matter in now, again, to this magistrate, I am sure 100 per cent he would judge completely different.  Completely different he would judge.

No way in the world when you see the photograph, you would see the report of the experts, you would say everything, I cannot see it stupid to judge something like that.  It is very simple as that.  What I ask, all sent back to rehearing in High Court or send back to local court to hearing.  It is silliest madness you’ve ever seen.  I wanted justice according to truth.  The truth is here.  Nobody can convince me it is not the truth. 

Article about what the Commission, got newspaper here if you want.  I ring them.  I speak with Mr Michael Burner.  I spoke to him just last.......  I spoke to him.  He very happy to have all my material sent to him.  I promise him after hearing I will send to him.  Because when I read this article, when I saw what going on, I was absolutely insult me.  I feel it is not justice.  I am army officer.  I respect every single word.  I respect order, I respect everything.  That is why ask me to respect people.  How to respect people but not give away this matter to go without justice.  He have plenty of

accident.  If you see transcript, he have accident.  Ask him the magistrate, have you have accident?  He said, yes, before this.  What happened?  He give me the money.  He crossed the red light, he give me the money, went off, case went off.  I checked the car 20 minute before the hearing because I been told when you stop the car go down.  That way, go down.  You got shock absorber under, you got spring.  The car never can go down the end of the spring.  Very simple as this.  I been under the car 10 minute before the hearing in the street.  I take metre.  I measure exactly the height of the spring.  I measure down to the bottom of the spring, how many he got.  I found out even if the car go completely down, the height of this accident never ever can happen with my car.  It just proved in photograph of this we did after.  It does not natural justice, what expect from me to do?  To pay him thousand of dollar for nothing? 

That is why I ask you please to consider all this, send back to hearing in local court.

BRENNAN CJ:   Thank you, Mr Azriel.  We will not call on you, Mr Hooke.

Mr Azriel seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal at the end of his appeal to that court in litigation arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  That litigation has been through several stages.  Although Mr Azriel is concerned that he has not received justice, he has not been able to show a ground of appeal of the kind which this Court grants special leave to argue.  Therefore, it is necessary to refuse special leave to appeal.  Special leave is refused.

MR HOOKE:   I seek costs, your Honour.

BRENNAN CJ:   Mr Azriel, Mr Hooke has asked for the costs of this application.

MR AZRIEL:   He will never get a cent.  He took $2,500.  I will get this money back.  He is Lebanese, I am Israeli.  I will fight for justice.  This is not true.  I am sorry to tell you this, you are three Justices of the High Court.  I think you did that only because not involve much money, what I been told.  Very simple as this.  You give what you want.

BRENNAN CJ:   Special leave will be refused with costs.

Court will adjourn until 12.45 pm.

AT 12.31 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED