Garland v State Transit Authority of NSW

[1999] HCATrans 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S30 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

ROBERT PETER GARLAND

Applicant

and

STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 1999, AT 2.53 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R.P. GARLAND appeared in person.

MR GARLAND:   To identify myself, because no one has seen me before  ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   That is not necessary.

CALLINAN J:   Do not trouble about that.

MR GARLAND:   I could have got someone to come in - - -

GAUDRON J:   No, it is sufficient if you concern yourself with the issues in the case, Mr Garland.

MR S.C. ROTHMAN, SC:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.G. WILSON, for the respondent.  (instructed by Clayton Utz)

GAUDRON J:   Yes, Mr Garland, if you would just go straight to the merits of your case or the issues in your case.  Do not concern yourself with other matters.

MR GARLAND:   Your honourable Honours, I am here today representing myself as to wit I have done basically all the way through this matter in relation to a one-page piece of paper that states I resigned my position as a bus driver with the State Transit Authority, my employer, but I did not.  What I did was, is I previously asked for time off due to effects from an assault that happened to me on duty while driving a bus.  From some of the material you must have looked through, I was dragged out of a bus, physically, beaten up by three male persons, badly smashed over, bitten on the ear, bitten on the hand, bitten on the back, smashed over badly.  Afterwards, I recovered from it but because I did not know the law technicalities or what to do – is the police charged two of the people and later on they took them to a local court and charged one, then I had photos taken, which I have, no one has seen yet, and I was told I could take it for a victim of crime case but it is basically a workers compensation case, or it is a sacking case from what happened to me, I got sacked.

The main point of view from the gentleman to my right stated that, no, I just resigned.  I walked into the depot and said - - -

GAUDRON J:   There is a piece of paper with a signature on it.

MR GARLAND:   Yes, but it is not my signature.  The piece of paper - - -

GAUDRON J:   And it has been found against you - - -

MR GARLAND:   - - - which has been found against me in all of the courts below, yes, and they have just established it because it is in writing.  The formulation of the form itself is in blue paper which technically as me being an employee with the government for approximately – from State Rail or State Transit – nearly eight years, does not exist.  They do not come in blue.  But because they have this one, and they say, “Here it is, we have it with the writing and signature on it” that is what their main point and argument is.  But with the documentation to wit what I have prepared under an application book and under – well, I just have as in my authorities.  May I ask, to wit, was this presented?  Has it been established, has it been written ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   Every document that you have - - -

CALLINAN J:   Yes, we have it, thank you, Mr Garland.

MR GARLAND:   Do I have to give one to the people to the right?

GAUDRON J:   Yes, if they have not got it, you do.  Do you need it, Mr Rothman.

MR ROTHMAN:   I think we have all the files here, your Honour, and I am sure that we can manage to find it.

MR GARLAND:   Okay then, but I will lend my people here this one.

GAUDRON J:   Mr Rothman says he has got the original file.

MR GARLAND:   Okay, thank.  I assume they may or may not have one.

GAUDRON J:   He will ask if he needs it.

MR GARLAND:   Okay.  Of course, my age has crept up to me, I must put my glasses back on.

GAUDRON J:   It happens to all of us I would say.

MR GARLAND:   Yes, unfortunately.  I have got new ones ordered now but I cannot afford to get them yet because paperwork must be produced and so on.  Directly, I would like you to turn to page 20 of the table of authorities, to wit, what I have.  This was a piece of paper that is a form written out and the writing on the form, to wit, was realistically formulated by my relationship that I broke up with because of all this.  It is her writing.  There is no doubt about it, it is no one else’s writing.  It is not mine.  But she was asked to write it in relation to it that I was going to be transferred to another bus depot, namely either Waverley or Kingsgrove, I was assuming at the same time that I was writing out one of my forms, except I must explain – and I do not want to read it out aloud of what the writing on the bottom is.

GAUDRON J:   Well, It is not your signature.

MR GARLAND:   That is not my signature.  That is the only way I want to write it.  The way I have worded it:  it is a one-page report that was written in a form of coarse language but I did not sign it.  I wrote it in coarse language but I do not want to repeat it out loud, so you must understand that.

The next point of view is I would like you to turn to the next page No 21.  The document there, to wit, was a form that I wrote out, that I sealed with a thing – well, I suppose I can explain it, like a bank card or master card thing with it going through a little machine and they slide back and they give the print up.  I wrote it, I signed it, I put my grade down the bottom and I dated it, and it was stamped, so I asked for a copy.  That is – if you would go back to the paper that I put at the front – page 21.  It is a report, to wit, well, I identify under my seal and it is stamped and signed by me.

The real question is on page 29.  This is the document, as they call it ‑ I call it just a piece of paper, a form.  It bears no sign of a stamp, no sign of a seal in relation to me as in authorising it to be written in the first place.  The signature at the bottom as that is worded is…..to be my signature - I can barely pronounce that word -. but it is not.  I do not know who has written it and I do not know who has signed it, really.

GAUDRON J:   But your difficulty is that it has been found that you did.

MR GARLAND:   Yes.  Then I ask you to turn - - -

GAUDRON J:   Yes, but we can only intervene if you can point to an error of law.

MR GARLAND:   Well, see, I do not know, see, what law really is.  Then I ask, “Whose law?”  That is what I am trying to work out.  “Whose law, is it?”  Is it just the compensation law of the government body that I worked under, because they turned around and they actually just shoved it in my face and said, “You have to resign” which I totally objected to, because I filled in my own documents.  I submitted a medical certificate from my doctor to be referred to the psychiatrist doctor in relation to going off duty from the ongoing effects from the assault on duty.  That is what it was.  But, (a), the piece of paper, to wit, what they state was the paper in relation to the piece of paper to resign, I still have it and it is blank.  It was never filled in.  I have the first one and the second one because I had three.  One was white, one was blue and one was yellow.  When I showed these before to the lower courts they would not accept them.

So, in the meantime, I just want to try to explain a little bit about my background, please, if I can.  I am an Australian born back in 1956 and my parents come from Britain.  Some British heritage; probably a little bit of British stubbornness in us.  The only thing I can virtually explain in relation to anything is that when people took a stand ages back while they were building a bridge in South Africa and while this bridge was being built by some Royal British engineers and Royal British infantry, just minding them, they heard a fantastic sound that sounded like a train but, you see, they were building a bridge.  There was no train there yet.  The noise was incredible.  No one knew what the noise was, so the officers just sent the chaps off through the plains to have a look.  So, they went off in the plains up on the hill to have a look and they went up and looked and there was about 6,000 Zulu warriors chasing and chanting and screaming and yelling and running at them in one massive corporatisation force.  They just headed straight back to their officers to tell them what was happening because they were that frightened to take on a corporatisation force coming at them like this.

When they got back everybody could see what was happening:  6,000 Zulus against about 300 Royal British officers, engineering and infantry.  They did not know how to do anything; not to do nothing because they had never seen anything like this before.  The infantry officer, the professional soldier, to wit, fell to the ground and said, “We’re dead”.  The engineering officer, to wit, from the background I come from said to him, “Get up and we’ll take these people on.”  Outnumbered, probably going to be out‑gunned, but they did and they stood and they fought.  They asked some of their porters in relation to it, “How do these Zulus fight?”  “They fight straight out, three ways.  They attack you three ways.”  So the officer, to wit, from the engineering said to the officer, to wit, who was the lieutenant in relation to the infantry, the professional solider, said, “We’ll put up a four defence mechanism.  Fight them.  Send two runners out the side:  peg 100, 200, 300 yards.  Fall back.  Send for a relief cavalry officer now.  Release the horses.  We’ll fight.”, and they did, waiting for a relief cavalry to arrive.  That is like me at the moment.

The first position fell under the triangle of the Zulu warriors because that is the way they come, straight at you and then sideways.  Then the officer, to wit, put up a four point position.  The four point position was just about ready to go.  The four point position is me at the moment fighting these whoever.  Over 30 foot fire…..behind me.

GAUDRON J:   We understand that point, Mr Garland, but there are rules by which you fight.

MR GARLAND:   Yes, and I do not know what to do any further.  I do not know where to go to.

GAUDRON J:   The rules of this Court are that you have to point to an error of law.

MR GARLAND:   The error of law is that the piece of paper that is on page 29, which is the only one I have as a copy as a resignation document is in error.  That is all I can say because the piece of paper that they brought out to me to fill in I still have it and it is not filled in.  The error is that even document in relation to court proceedings must be stamped, must be sealed.  The only thing I am going to put forward now is probably some of these medical papers may be read, or may not be read, I do not know.

But for ages and ages and ages and ages, I have felt that I have been on death row and what I want to do is just produce this.  Say this is a piece of paper, to wit, in relation to a resignation document.  It just says, “To be hung”.  That is what happened to me.  But, however, say why forever or whatever has happened to me in relation to this, I am ready to be hung.  Hung.

What would happen if this come to the courts to where I was going to be hung, to the gallows, and it has got “To be pardoned” with a seal and a signature in relation, to wit, a piece of paper that says “To be hung”.  I am identifying these two pieces of paper that the State Transit Authority Management accepted as a resignation and I am just tendering as in giving an example.  It is page 29; on the book that I have as to page 21.  I do not know what to do any further.  All I am saying is that this is the page that they brought out to the car for me and my wife to fill in.  But actually the one that was filled in was already left inside the depot but it was not signed and it did not have anything written up the top.  It did not have a stamp to say it was approved by anything.  The management, to wit, in relation to me just decided that, “He’s resigned; he’s gone; good.  He has been that much of a troublemaker in relation to all of the incidents that happened to him”, namely, the assault that happened to me on duty.  The price of that was too expensive.  The incident what happened earlier:  I drove a bus and a person chucked a rock at the bus and caused a woman to get injured on the bus and then they blamed me.  They asked me to change a statement in relation to a windscreen that was cracked, and I said no.  I said, no, I was not, under no circumstances would I change a statement in relation to a windscreen that was cracked on a bus, because it was cracked.

My hand got fractured on the steering wheel and my watch got broken.  Well, my hand got fixed up later on in plaster and that and my watch got repaired.  But I would not do that.  The thing was that they just called me a liability and that was what it was.  The management would stand and point at me, and point and point and point and say that I was too expensive in relation to being employed.  I had to resign.  I said, no.  I have got rights to go off duty because my doctors had put me off.  I had sick leave of approximately 13-odd days plus.  I had holidays, to wit, of about 5 weeks; combined long service of three months which they ignored.  They just said, “You resign.”  I stood there and said, no.

I filled out my form which I identified, to wit, on the authorities at page 21.  I have it sealed, stamped and signed.  The document protruding as a resignation document from the management who, as I state, hated my guts, is an illegal piece of paper, a form.  You cannot identify it to anything.  It has even be regarded, to wit, by the police when I showed it to him, as a shopping list.  In relation to a shopping list, a shopping list is thrown away after you buy your shopping.  It is not an official document.  I also ask you, to wit, to turn to some of these papers in here, especially the orders in relation to anything.  I ask you to turn to pages 16 and 17 of the application to the appeal book which I have prepared myself and I ask you just to look at page 16 and then look at page 17.  It is worded the same.  It even sounds the same.  Pages 16 and 17 in the application book, to wit, what I have prepared, it is worded the same and it sounds the same but the difference is one thing.  It is stamped.  It is officially stamped.  It is officially stamped with a seal on it.  I revert back to my argument in relation to the two documents that I referred to earlier.

While you are observing the difference, which is the wording, which is nearly the same, but the stamp – it is the seal on it.  I ask you now to turn to pages 6 and 7 of the application book that I put together.  The booklet has at page 6 and 7 – it is nearly worded the same.  It sounds the same except I did not know I had to get a sealed copy and I did not get the sealed copy which is dated 23 November 1998 before the first initial point in the Industrial Relations Court of Australia in front of a registrar, because it is sealed,  It is sealed; not the other one.  That is my main point in relation to the resignation letter.  It has no stamp on it as a seal.  It is not my seal on it.  It is not my stamp on it.  It is not official.  It is probably a practical joke being pulled on me to get rid of me.  That is the only assumption, to wit, I have used and it has cost me everything.  It has cost me my relationship, my children, everything, because people say to me, “You’re sick, mate.  You’re a lunatic.”  Because why?  Because I am taking on a magnificent corporatisation that should have maintained itself as a government department.  But they turn to a magnificent corporatisation law firm which no one will take on for me.  No one.

The only thing I am doing is relying on a little bit of background for me - probably it is British stubbornness – to stand up against them, like a magnificent corporatisation Zulu force.  I will stand to the bitter end.  I did not resign.  I went off duty because I was ill, suffering from an illness, from an on-duty assault, namely, being dragged out of a bus, beaten up.  If you want to look at the photos, I have the photos that the New South Wales Police Forensic Unit took that nobody has ever bothered to look at.

GAUDRON J:   Yes, but they are not directly relevant to this case, are they?

MR GARLAND:   But, see, I do not know how to word it any different.  All I did was ask for time off.  I do ask you to turn, for the last bit of evidence in relation to it, to page No 13 and No 14.  I signed off duty as it says down the bottom at 5.03 pm.  I put in a general report form on the day, on 3 March 1994 when I went off.  I sealed it.  I only copy stamped it because the original one went into the depot.  I ask you, to wit, to identify the signature on this document, my document, to wit, on page 21 as, to wit, the copy of – the only copy I have that come out of a fax machine on page 29.  They are totally different.  I will now, also, ask you to look at official documentation, to wit, as a passport and a driver’s licence.

GAUDRON J:   No, we do not need to see that.

MR GARLAND:   Okay.  That is the only thing I can do.  The only thing I can think of.  I have fronted lawyers left, right and centre, I cannot get anyone because of who I am up against; not the employer, the legal representation of them.  They are too big; they are too powerful.  To me, they are like the Zulu force attacking me but I will not move.  I will take them on anywhere but where, I do not know where.

I am not a brain damaged person, actually, I am not a mental retardation person like I have been called not from anybody that is in this room but from other colleagues that I worked under.  I cannot spell, I am dyslexic.  That is why it takes me so long to produce anything.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  Well, that does not go to the issues here.

MR GARLAND:   It hurts me when people point the finger at me like they did at my job and said, “You’re a troublemaker, you’re a liability”.  That is the only thing that I wanted - - -

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  Well, we understand that, Mr Garland, but you have to address yourself to why special leave should be granted and you will have to show error, and your time has almost expired.

MR GARLAND:   Yes.  I did write it out.  It is just that the form says – it does not have anything on it that states it is written by me.  It is not my handwriting and it has not even been authorised by me when I prepared all my own documents.  That is all.  I do not know how to word it any different.  I have lost everything.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  Thank you, Mr Garland.  We need not trouble you, Mr Rothman.

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to challenge factual findings made against him in the courts below.  As such, the application raises no issue of principle suitable to attract the grant of special leave.  Accordingly, special leave is refused.

The Court will adjourn now to reconstitute.

AT 3.16 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED