Legal Research
Cases
Bradley v The Crown

Bradley v The Crown

Case [2020] QCA 252 13 November 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2020] QCA 252

COURT OF APPEAL

SOFRONOFF P
MULLINS JA
BODDICE J

CA No 78 of 2020
DC No 3771 of 2019

BRADLEY, Ross James Applicant

THE CROWN

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2020

JUDGMENT

SOFRONOFF P: The applicant was charged with one count of unlicensed driving. He was convicted and fined $150 with no conviction recorded. He applied to the magistrate to dismiss the charge on the ground that for reasons that are not clear a police officer had no power to charge him or to commence the proceedings in question. The argument was obvious nonsense and the magistrate rightly rejected it. After hearing the evidence led by the prosecution, the magistrate found the applicant guilty as charged.

Not satisfied with this outcome, the applicant appealed to the District Court and argued that he was something which he called a citizen sovereign and that the laws of Queensland did not apply to him. If that was true, then it would be hard to understand why the applicant was agitating his complaints before this court, which is one that has been established under the laws that he says do not apply to him. This paradox did not trouble the applicant and he has now applied for leave to appeal against Judge Moynihan QC’s order dismissing his appeal. That the applicant is merely persisting in putting forward a jumble of gobbledygook to support his application in this court can be seen at once if one reads only the two opening sentences of his purported outline of argument:

“My BRADLEY person (conjoined with the BRADLEY ‘spiritual’ family body-politic) is my own “body politic” by succession, at Law. It is my natural body incorporated at the supreme Christian Law and is my own jurisdiction.”

This application is an abuse of the court’s process and should be dismissed.

MULLINS JA: I agree.

BODDICE J: I agree.

Details

AGLC: Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252
Case: [2020] QCA 252
Decision Date: 13 NOVEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ross James Bradley was the applicant in an appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal against his conviction for unlicensed driving. The appeal followed an unsuccessful attempt to have the charge dismissed before the District Court. Bradley's primary contention was that he was a "citizen sovereign" and, as such, not subject to Queensland law. He further argued that the police officer who charged him lacked the authority to do so.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were twofold. Firstly, whether Bradley's arguments concerning his status as a "citizen sovereign" were sufficient to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts in Queensland. Secondly, whether the application to appeal was an abuse of process given the lack of coherent argument presented by Bradley.

The Court of Appeal found that Bradley's arguments were nonsensical and did not constitute a valid challenge to the jurisdiction of the courts. The Court held that the law recognises no such status as "citizen sovereign" and that Bradley's arguments amounted to little more than gobbledygook. The Court also found that the application to appeal was an abuse of process, as it was clear that Bradley was persisting with arguments that had no legal basis. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders