Cardinia Shire Council v Kraan
[2017] VMC 24
•21 DECEMBER 2017
| IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA AT DANDENONG |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION |
No. F13189056
|
| Informant |
| v | |
| KRAAN, RONALD | Accused |
MAGISTRATE: | MAGISTRATE MACCALLUM |
WHERE HELD: | DANDENONG MAGISTRATES’ COURT |
DATES OF HEARING: | 29 NOVEMBER 2017 |
DATE OF DECISION: | 21 DECEMBER 2017 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | CARDINIA SHIRE COUNCIL V KRAAN [2017] VMC024 |
RULING
Notice of Constitutional matter - Chan v Harris (No.3) [2011] FCA 342 - Section 78B Judiciary Act 1903 not intended to apply where notice arguable, frivolous or vexatious - Sill v City of Wodonga [2017] VSC 671 - No legal basis to submissions challenging the validity of the charges.
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Prosecution | N. SHERIDAN-SMITH | RUSSELL KENNEDY |
For the Accused | IN PERSON | N/A |
HER HONOUR:
The Accused, Ronald Kraan, is charged with four contraventions of the Building Act 1993.
The Accused makes various submissions challenging the validity of the proceeding brought against him by the Cardinia Shire Council (the Council), and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the charges. He raised these submissions by tendering a document dated 4 October 2017 entitled “Notice of a Constitutional matter under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 prepared by Wayne Glew (the Notice) (Attachment A), and a document entitled “Affidavit of Truth” (the Affidavit) filed with the Court on 29 November 2017 (Attachment B). The Council’s legal submissions in response to these documents appear as Attachment C.
At the hearing on 29 November 2017, I rejected Mr Kraan’s request for an adjournment based on the Notice. I do not consider the matters stated in the Notice to raise genuine constitutional issues. As stated in Chan v Harris (No.3)[1] section 78B is not intended to apply where there is merely an allegation that a constitutional point arises, if the point alleged is unarguable, frivolous or vexatious. In my view, the matters raised by Mr Kraan are unarguable and vexatious.
[1] [2011] FCA 342 paragraphs 13-18.
I interpret the matters referred to in the Affidavit to be an application by him for dismissal of the charges on the grounds stated by him. I note the Council’s helpful submissions that attempt to decipher the meaning of Mr Kraan’s statements. Upon consideration of Mr Kraan’s submissions, I have dismissed them as having no basis in law. Many of these matters have been dealt with in the ruling of 13 July 2017. Some of the matters are new, but it is immediately obvious upon reading them that they have no basis in law, and the content of the submissions and the manner in which they are presented constitutes an abuse of process.
I will now provide further reasons for my ruling on 29 November 2017. I will deal with each of the matters raised in the Notice and Affidavit in the order in which they are asserted.
Submission 1 – the Notice
The Notice states:
“Nature of Constitutional matter
The Magistrates Court, the County Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria are all Registered as being Run by the Department of the Attorney General of Victoria ABN 32 790 228 959 and as such are Trading Companies as defined by section 51 ss 20 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Ref HCA 11 of 2015 and the Fair Work Act Commonwealth at section 35.
These Courts sit under State Acts and Statutes instead of sitting under Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution Act UK and the Commonwealth Constitution 1901 Commonwealth.
None of the Courts are lawful as they can not be a gathering under the sovereign and sit inside the Commonwealth held to the Constitution and the Common law.
None of these courts can be upheld by any court including the High Court.”
Firstly, this matter is not before the Supreme Court or the County Court. The submission is therefore irrelevant. In any event, the Supreme Court in Sill v City of Wodonga[2] has recently ruled that the Supreme Court of Victoria has existed since 1852 and was created by the section 10 of the Supreme Court Administration Act 1852 to be a Court of Record.[3] The County Court is established under Division 1, Part 1 of the County Court Act 1958. The jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court to hear and determine these charges is set out in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
[2] [2017] VSC 671
[3] Paragraph 6.
As stated by the Supreme Court in Sill,[4] section 143(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2008 provides that:
[4] Paragraph 10.
“143 Matters of law
(1) Proof is not required about the provisions and coming into operation
(in whole or in part) of—
(a) an Act, an Imperial Act in force in Australia, a Commonwealth Act, an Act of another State or an Act or Ordinance of a Territory.”
The Supreme Court noted that this provision was enacted to prevent arguments such as the one raised by Mr Kraan.[5]
[5] Paragraph 11.
10. The Notice states further:
Facts showing that section 78B Judiciary Act 1903 applies
“All Judges and Magistrates must be selected by the Governor in Council and must swear the oath of allegiance before swearing their oath of office.
There is no Governor in Council to select Magistrates and Judges so they are all sitting in Treason and Fraud.
The above is a requirement of Chapter II of the Commonwealth Constitution UK and the Commonwealth Constitution Commonwealth of Australia 1901.”
11. The process for the appointment of Magistrates is set out in the ruling of 13 July 2017. The process for the appointment of judges of the Supreme and County Courts is irrelevant to this prosecution. Nevertheless, it is set out in the legislation establishing those courts.[6]
[6] Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), sections 75 and 75B; County Court Act 1958, sections 4 and 8.
12. The other statements in the Notice are incorrect in law, incoherent, and have no relevance to this criminal prosecution.
13. Turning now to the submissions in the Affidavit. None of the submissions made by the Accused, save for submissions one and two, are coherent or bear any relevance to this prosecution.
Submissions 1 and 2
“I have owned the property where I live and I hold the land in Fee Simple for 30 years.
Fee simple alienates my land from the Crown.”
14. These statements have no bearing on the validity of the charges or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this matter. They are relevant only insofar as they contain admissions that the Accused is the owner of the land the subject of this prosecution.
Submission 3
“As the Crown is the only authority to deal with land through the Governor in Council by Letters Patent, the Shire of Cardinia has No Authority over it nor can the State Government grant authority.”
15. This submission has no basis in law. Insofar as it restates the Accused’s earlier submission that the Council has no authority to bring this prosecution, that argument has been considered and dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 4
“Fee Simple is clearly stated in Fejo v The Northern Territory HCA 58 of 1998 at paragraph 93 it states; “This court has expressed in the most ample terms the meaning of an estate in Common Law in the Commonwealth v New South Wales, Isaacs J said (138)”
”In the language of English Law, the word Fee signifies An Estate of Inheritance as distinguished from a Less Estate, A Fee Simple is the most Absolute in respect to the Rights it confers of all Estates known to the Law, it confers and since the beginning of Legal History it always has conferred, the Lawful Right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to the land, every Act of Ownership which can enter into the imagination”.
16. This submission misstates Fejo v Northern Territory,[7] which provides:
93. Before the decision of this Court in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] ("Mabo [No 2]") which gave rise to legal claims of native title in Australia, the Court had expressed in the most ample terms the meaning of an estate in fee simple at common law. In The Commonwealth v New South Wales, Isaacs J said:
"In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished from a less estate ... A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law. It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination".
[7] (1998) 195 CLR 96 paragraph 93.
17. This case is wholly irrelevant to this prosecution. Insofar as Mr Kraan is attempting to restate that he, as the owner of his land, is not subject to the laws of Australia, that submission has been considered and dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 5
“A Tenant in Fee Simple is he which hath lands or Tenements to hold to him and his heirs for ever”, Sexton v Horton 1926 HCA 25 per Knox CJ and Stark J 249 per Higgins J: In re Divisions Settlement 1913 2 CH 498 at 502 per Warrington J”.
18. This appears to be a misstatement of the headnote to Sexton v Horton[8] which states:
“By a deed of settlement made in New South Wales in 1865 the settlor granted certain land unto A and his heirs to have and to hold unto and to the use of A and his heirs during the life of the settlor’s wife in trust to allow her and her assigns to hold the same for her separate use without impeachment of waste, and from and immediately after her decease to the use of the eldest son of the settlor and his wife living at the time of her death, and in the event of there being no such son then to the use of the wife, her heirs and assigns for ever.”
[8] (1926) 38 CLR 240.
19. Sexton v Horton has no relevance to the present proceedings. This is similar to the earlier submissions in which the Accused admits that he is the owner of the land, but asserts that as the owner he is not subject to the laws of Australia. That submission has been considered and dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 6
“In Lipohar v The Queen 1999 at 52 it clearly states at paragraph 52 that although decisions of the Supreme Courts of the States are binding on the inferior courts, they do not form part of the Common Law, however decisions of the High Court, once published, form part of the Common Law and are binding on the Courts, Judges and People of every State.”
20. This is a misquote from Lipohar v R[9] which states:
52. The liability of the Commonwealth in tort and contract is created by the common law; s 75(iii) of the Constitution denies operation of what otherwise might be doctrines of Crown or executive immunity in these fields. The "common law" here is that of Australia, rather than a "federal common law" distinct from the common law of each of the other bodies politic in Australia.
[9] (1999) 200 CLR 485.
21. This decision has no relevance to the current prosecution. The submission is incoherent.
Submission 7
“In Andrew James McGinty v The State of Western Australia HCA 48 of 1996 the High Court ruled that, ‘The States did not exist before Federation they were Colonies. The States were created by 107, 108 and 109 of the Constitution and draw their authority referentially from that constitution.”
22. McGinty v Western Australia[10] has no relevance to this prosecution. Insofar as this is another submission that the local councils are not recognised within the Commonwealth Constitutional structure, that argument has been dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 0217.
[10] (1996) 186 CLR 140.
Submission 8
“As you can see both the Councils submissions and the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in relation to Glew v The Greenough Shire was a Fraud committed on Glew by the Supreme Court”.
23. The decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough[11] is referred to in the ruling of 13 July 2017, to demonstrate that the Accused has wholly misconceived the Australian Constitutional structure. In Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough[12] Gummou J states:
“GUMMOW J: The Local Court of Western Australia at Geraldton gave judgment for the respondent and against the applicants for a trivial sum, being arrears of rates. That court rejected the applicants' argument that the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) is unconstitutional, as is s 52 of the Constitution Act 1889 (WA). The District Court of Western Australia dismissed the applicants' appeal. In turn the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed a further appeal as "entirely lacking in legal merit". We agree, and the same expression applies to the prolix, offensive and vexatious documents filed in support of this special leave application.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. It must be dismissed. I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.”
[11] [2006] WASCA 260.
[12] [2007] HCATrans 520 (6 September 2007).
24. Insofar as the Accused is adopting Mr Glew’s submissions about the validity of local council made in the above cases, the Western Australian Court of Appeal and the High Court have dismissed those arguments as an abuse of process, and in the case of the High Court “prolix, offensive, and vexatious.” Those words characterise the nature of this submission, which is also dismissed.
Submission 9
“That makes the bulk of the unreported decision of the Dandenong Magistrates Court on the 13th of July Void in Law, I e Fraud Vitiates Everything.”
25. Insofar as this is a reference to the ruling of 13 July 2017, the above incoherent submissions have no bearing on the legal validity of that ruling.
Submission 10
“Chapter 5 of the Commonwealth Constitution states clearly that, ‘Local Government is the State Parliament and Councils are Municipal Authorities Ref page 936 of the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth”
26. Insofar as this incoherent submission seeks to challenge the legal validity of local government, that argument has been raised and dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 11
“HCA 38 of 1915 states: At 148 Griffiths CJ stated; “Here we find section 106 binds the State Constitution and all its Laws to the overriding authority of the Commonwealth Constitution”. “It is beyond the Legislative Authority of State Parliaments to Pass a Law that overrides a Commonwealth Law backed up by the Constitution.”
27. The above citation appears to relate to the case of Whitton v Falkiner.[13] The above quotes are not attributed to this case, and the case itself is of no relevance to the present prosecution.
[13] (1915) 20 CLR 118.
28. The Accused’s previous argument about section 106 of the Constitution was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 12
“15A of the Acts Interpretation Act Commonwealth states that “Every Law must be made in accordance with the Constitution.”
29. Section 15A of that Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) does not state this. It provides:
“Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution
Every Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof would, but for this section, have been construed as being in excess of that power, it shall nevertheless be a valid enactment to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power.”
30. It is of no relevance to this prosecution. Insofar as it is another submission about the invalidity of local government, that argument was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 13
“Chapter One page 346 of the Constitution states; “Not all Laws of the Parliament are lawful only laws passed pursuant to and in compliance to the Constitution are binding on the Courts, Judges and People of every State, all other laws are Void, If there are any authorities not granted to a Parliament they are Denied and Remain with the People”.
31. This appears to be a misquote of clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (Cth) which states:
“This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen's ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.”
32. Mr Kraan’s submission is incoherent. The Court’s ruling of 13 July 2017 cited clause 5 of the Constitution to counter Mr Kraan’s argument that he is not subject to the laws of Australia.
Submission 14
“The so called Local Government was put to the People and they denied it – End of Story.”
33. This submission about the referendum on amending the Commonwealth Constitution to recognise local government has already been raised and dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 15
“Councils are NOT LOCAL GOVERNMENT they are required, to be Lawful, to be established as Municipal Authorities as a Public Utility NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT”
34.This is a restatement of the previous submission that the Council is not a valid legal entity which was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 16
“In 2005 every Council in Australia was advised by the Taxation Department (ATO) that as they had an ABN 32 210 906 807 Cardinia Shire, they are a TRADING COMPANY.”
35. This is a restatement of the Accused’s previous submission which was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submissions 17 -20
“HCA 11 of 2015, THE High Court ruled in relation to Queensland Rail – “It did not matter if they are a Government Entity, if they had an ABN and provided services for money they were a Trading Company and subject to section 51 ss 20”
“That section states that Companies formed under State Legislation, once formed come under Federal Legislation Authority”
“It is clear they come under the 2001 Corporations Act Commonwealth and the 2001 ASIC Act”
“The Fair Work Act at section 35 states; “If you have an ABN, and Cardinia shire does, and you employ people, you are a Company”
36. The citation “[2015] HCA 11” is a reference to the case Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Queensland Rail.[14] It has no relevance to this prosecution. The reference to section 35 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) has no relevance to the criminal charges against the Accused.
[14] [2015] HCA 11.
37. The Accused appears to be again submitting that the Council is not a valid entity, an argument which was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submissions 21 and 22
“Chapter 3 section 76 page 791 of the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth Quick & Garran states; “Neither the Federal nor the State Parliaments are Sovereign they are simply Legislatures with Limited authority, is they Attempt to pass a law in excess of that authority it is a Nullity and Affords No Obedience”.
“Page 676 – The Parliaments are NOT SUPREME and the very essence of Federation is that must be so.”
38. This is an incoherent statement and it is unclear what the basis of the Accused’s submission is. I assume that the Accused is attempting to argue that the Building Act 1993 and the Local Government Act 1989 are not valid acts of the Victorian Parliament, an argument which was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 23
“The Unidrolt Treaty signed by Gough Whitlam in 1973 was an Act of Treason against the Australian People as were all of the laws derived from it.”
39. This is an incoherent statement that has no bearing on the criminal charges.
Submissions 24 and 25
“The Australia Act 1986 states that It was made pursuant to section 51 sub section 38 of the Constitution, it states;
“The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request, or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the states directly concerned, of any power which can be excercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia.”
“The Annotated Constitution at this section states that there were no authorities excercisable for the following reasons; “On the proclamation of the Constitution on the 9th of July 1900 under the provisions of Clause 7, the Old Entities known as the Australasian Councils and the Colonies ceased to exist, but even if this was not so there were only Seven Legislative areas ever excercisable by the Australasian Council and even less by the Colonies and all Seven are contained in Section 51 of this Constitution.”
40. The first part of this submission incorrectly quotes s.51(xxxviii) of the Commonwealth Constitution which states:
“(xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia;”
41. The Accused’s submissions are incoherent, misstate the law, and have no bearing on the criminal charges. Insofar as this is another attempt to argue that Court has no jurisdiction, or the Council no power, to bring this prosecution, those arguments have been dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submissions 26 -31
“There is No Authority Granted over Land either to Tax or Control it by either State or Federal Parliaments.”
“The Letters Patent put in place by Queen Victoria on the 29th of October 1900 putting in place the Office of Governor for each State and the State Constitutions, clearly state “only the State Governors in Council can deal with land.”
“All Land Titles are held in FEE SIMPLE and are the property of the purchaser and must be given on purchase to the owner. TITLE DISPICTS OWNERSHIP.”
“The Parliament has no authority over Land and Can Not by an Act of Parliament speak an authority into being when NONE EXISTS IN LAW – END OF STORY.”
“The fact is Councils are Companies and Without a Written Contract under section 5 of the Corporations Act, Can Not Have Any Authority and No Government Can Grant them power.”
“Each Government of a State must consist of – An Executive Consisting of a Governor who selects Ten from the Lower House and Eight from the Upper House and they hold all the Port Folios and Can Not Vote in Parliament. They put all Legislation together and present it to the Parliament for debating. If it passes it goes back to the Governor who signs on Behalf of the Queen that it complies with the State Constitution subject to the Commonwealth Constitution.”
42. Each of these submissions, although worded differently, have already been made by the Accused and were dismissed previously.
Submission 32
“The Third Tier of the State and Federal Governments are the Judicature and in accordance with paragraph 52 of Kable v DPP CLR 189 of 1996 “All courts are part of a Federal Judicial system with the High Court at its summit”.”
43. The Accused’s submission regarding the case of Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions for New South Wales[15] was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
[15] (1996) 189 CLR 51.
Submission 33
“The State Constitution of Victoria has been Unlawfully changed by the adding of so called Local Government.”
44. This submission restates the Accused’s previous argument concerning the Victorian Constitution and the legal validity of local government which was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 34
“The only power to do anything to the State Constitution is found in 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution which allows the right to alter subject to the Commonwealth Constitution which is Supreme.”
45. This submission restates the Accused’s submission about the operation of section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution which was dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 35
“The King James Bible was put in place with a Letters Patent in 1611 and stands today as the Common Law of the People and the only instrument that can be relied upon to constitute a lawful Court.”
46. This statement is incoherent and has no basis in law. As stated in the ruling of 13 July 2017, the bible has no relevance to Australia law.
Submission 36
“I find it disturbing that Magistrate Maccallum, who was appointed by the Government of Victoria, and not the Governor in Council, and did not take the Oath of Allegiance as required by the Commonwealth Constitution, could sit in the Dandenong Magistrates Court and make the statements she has done.
47. I have stated the legal basis for my appointment, and for the Court’s jurisdiction to hear summary criminal charges, in the ruling of 13 July 2017.
Submission 37-38
“Both Natalie Sheridon-Smith and Russell Kennedy should and MUST BE BOUND OVER to STAND TRIAL in the County Court of Victoria for the following charges;
(a)Fraud on Ronald Wayne of the family Kraan.
(b)Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice section 42 of the Crimes Act 1914.
(c)Treason and Misprison of Treason.
(d)Treachery to change the Commonwealth Constitution contrary to section 24 AA of the Crimes Act 1914 Commonwealth.”
“All Lawyers in Victoria are required to know the law and follow the law.”
48. I accept the Council’s submission that the above allegations against Counsel for the Prosecution and her instructing solicitors are “misconceived, spurious and have no proper basis in law.” I have no reason to doubt that Counsel for the Prosecution and her instructing solicitors are authorised to practice pursuant to the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2015 (Vic) and hold current practicing certificates.
Submissions 39-42
“For the past 30 years I have been operating my work and living on my property.”
“The Council has HARRASED me to the destruction of my first marriage and continues to do so.”
“The Council has, with Mallis and with Abuse of the process of the courts and V-Cat charged me several times and after many months withdrawn the charges. This is Criminal and a Malicious Attack on me and my property.”
“This and the other Criminal Actions of the Council and its workers MUST BE DEALT WITH BY THIS COURT.”
49. The Accused is re-stating several submissions that have been considered and dismissed in the ruling of 13 July 2017. There is no credible evidence before the Court that the Council has brought these proceedings improperly. I understand from the Council’s submissions that the reference to the VCAT proceeding refers to an entirely separate prosecution, and has no relevance to this proceeding.
Submissions 43-46
“In Fejo v The Northern Territory HCA 58 of 1998 Justice Kirby stated very clearly that, “No One, Not even the Queen can enter private property without a Warrant issued under the Crown, to do so is to Commit Trespass.”
“If the Council, Courts or the State Governments want to change that they would have to petition the High Court to change their decision.”
“This Council has entered my property day and night without a warrant under the Crown or without my authority.”
“No law of the Parliament of a State or the Commonwealth can change the decision of the High Court and the High Court has the power to Punish contempt’s of its courts under the Judiciary Act 1903 Commonwealth.”
50. The decision of Fejo was referred to above. It has no relevance to this proceeding.
51. Mr Kraan here alleges that employees of the Cardinia Shire Council have unlawfully trespassed or entered upon his property.
52. During the ex parte hearing on 29 November 2017, each witness gave oral evidence as to the dates and purposes for which they had entered upon the property of the Accused. Those details are set out in my reasons for decision in relation to the charges. There is no credible evidence before the Court that the Council has unlawfully entered the Accused’s property, or unlawfully or improperly gathered evidence for the purposes of this Prosecution. The Accused voluntarily chose to leave the court room despite being warned that the hearing would be likely to proceed in his absence, denying himself the opportunity to lawfully challenge the evidence of the Council witnesses. There is no substance in the submissions that he makes.
Submissions 47- 48
“All decisions of the High Court and all sections of the Commonwealth Constitution have been shown to me and explained to me by a friend, Wayne Kenneth of the family Glew CPO. OWB Commonwealth Public Official who has an Award being the OWB (The Order of the Wattle Blossom) for Outstanding Endeavours in support of Australia’s heritage of the Common Law, and of the Australian Constitution. This Award was on the 1st of September 2014.”
“Wayne Kenneth of the family Glew CPO.OWB Commonwealth Public Official has discussed every part if this Affidavit with me and read it back to me. Every part I agree with and I will be signing with full knowledge of the contents of this Affidavit.”
53. I note the Council’s submissions about the spurious nature of these submissions. In any case, Mr Glew’s views or his background have no relevance to the criminal charges against Mr Kraan.
Conclusion
54. In summary, there is no legal basis in any of these submissions that purport to challenge the validity of the charges, the jurisdiction of the Court, the power of the Council to bring this prosecution, or the lawfulness of the Council’s conduct, and they are dismissed.
0
2
0