Gyorgy v City of Greater Geraldton
[2016] WASC 399
•5 DECEMBER 2016
GYORGY -v- CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON [2016] WASC 399
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASC 399 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1055/2016 | 5 DECEMBER 2016 | |
| Coram: | MARTINO J | 5/12/16 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID SHANE GYORGY CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Application for leave to appeal Authority of magistrate |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE D POTTER
File No : GN 2810 of 2016, GN 2811 of 2016
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal - Authority of magistrate
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr A D Wadham
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : McLeods Barristers & Solicitors
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
- MARTINO J:
(This is an edited version of reasons delivered at the hearing on 5 December 2016)
1 The appellant was charged in the Magistrates Court at Geraldton with two charges, namely:
1. Between 15 January 2015 and 22 April 2015, both dates inclusive at 8 Jenark Road, Woorree used land within the City of Geraldton-Greenough Local Planning Scheme No. 5 District Scheme (Greenough) Scheme area without all approvals required by the Scheme having been granted and issued thereby contravening Clause 11.4(b)(ii) of the said Scheme, contrary to Section 218(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2005.
2. On 21 April 2015 at 8 Jenark Road, Woorree obstructed an authorise person exercising a power conferred by the Building Act 2011, namely a power to enter the property a 8 Jenark Road, Woorree, contrary to Section 105 of the Building Act 2011.
2 He pleaded not guilty. A trial took place on 14 June 2016 before Magistrate Potter. His Honour reserved his decision, which he delivered on 14 July 2016. He found the appellant guilty of both charges.
3 It appears that the learned magistrate imposed fines on the appellant. The appellant's appeal notice says that he was fined $16.750, which the appellant tells me is $16,750. At a directions hearing on 27 October 2016 I ordered that the appellant lodge a transcript of the hearing on 14 July 2016 at which he was sentenced. He has not done so. I consider his failure to do so to be a result of a misunderstanding rather than a result of a wilful disregard of my order.
4 By an appeal notice lodged on 5 August 2016 the appellant purported to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the learned magistrate's decision. The appeal must be to a single judge of this court: s 13(1) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA). The Supreme Court registry treated the appeal as an appeal to a single judge.
5 The notice of appeal does not specify whether the appeal is an appeal against conviction or an appeal against sentence or both. It says only that the appellant 'applies to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the above decision'. The grounds of appeal on the appeal notice were:
1. The Magistrate was wrong in law when he claimed to have Authority over David Shane Gyorgy and that he sat in a lawful court.
2. The Magistrate was wrong in law when he decided his company gathering was a lawful court contrary to HCA 29 of 2009 paragraph 18.
3. The magistrate was wrong in law when he decided that the trading company, the City of Greater Geraldton ABN 55907677173 could and did have authority over me and my land when they did not have a wet ink contract that complies with the 2001 Corporation Act (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investment Act 2001 (Cth).
4. The Magistrate was wrong in law when he decided a decision of the Tax Department did not prove that the Councils are Trading Companies.
5. The Magistrate was wrong in law when he decided that the Trading Company, the State Government of Western Australia ABN 072526008 and all of its subsidiary trading companies had any authority in law when every man, woman, child, courts and judges are subject to the Commonwealth Constitution and all laws made pursuant to it.
6. The Magistrate was wrong in law when he showed complete bias towards me and in doing so committed fraud on me and the lawful courts authorised by the Commonwealth Constitution Act UK 1900 and the Commonwealth Constitution 1901.
6 At the directions hearing on 27 October 2016 I asked the appellant about ground 6. He said:
GYORGY, MR: Well, the magistrate ignored the Commonwealth Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and the Commonwealth Constitution 1901, sir.
…
MARTINO J: Well, no, he didn't. He applied the law. I've read his reasons and he did not ignore that legislation.
GYORGY, MR: He is operating on state Acts and statutes which it doesn't apply to this man at all (ts 4).
7 I informed the appellant that was not bias. I informed the appellant that he would not be granted leave to appeal on the grounds contained in the grounds of appeal and that if he wished to do so I would give him the opportunity to amend them. I allowed him until 24 November 2016 to file and serve proposed amended grounds of appeal.
8 On 24 November 2016 the appellant filed a document described as amended grounds of appeal. The proposed amended grounds are:
1. The Magistrate was wrong in law and fact when he sat in a Company Gathering called a court, under purported State Acts and Statutes made by the Trading Company being the State Government of Western Australia ABN 072526008 Ref HCA 11 of 2015.
2. The Magistrate was wrong in law and fact when he decided that the Trading Company the City of Greater Geraldton ABN 55907677173 could and did have authority over me and my land when they did not have a Wet Ink Contract that complies with the 2001 Corporations Act (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investment Act 2001 (Cth).
3. The Magistrate was wrong in law when he decided a decision of the Taxation Department which referred to several Federal Acts did not prove by its decision that the Councils are TRADING COMPANIES.
4. The Magistrate was wrong in law when he decided that the Trading Company, the State Government of Western Australia ABN 072526008 and all of its subsidiary trading companies had any authority in law when every man, woman, child, courts and judges are subject to the Commonwealth Constitution and all laws made pursuant to it.
5. Andrew White the Compliance Officer of the City of Greater Geraldton, admitted that the City was a Trading Company and in doing so negated any purported authority over me and my land.
6. The City of Greater Geraldton as a TRADING COMPANY with an ABN does not comply with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in the purported authority of the Local Government Act of WA. At 2.5 the Local Government Act States that; Local Government is established as a body corporate and under the Corporations Act 2001 must have an ACN number. This negates its ability to deal under State Acts and Statutes without a written WET INK Contract with me.
7. All the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia as stated by Magistrate Potter have no effect in this case as they do not deal with the council being a TRADING COMPANY with an ABN number, Ref HCA 11 of 2015 and do not deal with the fact that they require an ACN number to comply with the State Acts to exist. They of course do not nor do they comply with Section 51(xx) of the Commonwealth Constitution, nor the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
8. The Parliaments of the States nor the Commonwealth are NOT SUPREME Ref page 676 of the Constitution.
9. The Parliaments of the States not the Commonwealth are NOT SOVEREIGN Ref page 791 of the Constitution.
10. McGinty v The State of Western Australia 1996. 'The States did not exit at Federation, they were created by 107 108 and 109 of the Constitution and gain their authority to Legislate referentially from the Constitution.
9 The original grounds of appeal and the proposed amended grounds of appeal raise arguments that were correctly rejected by the learned magistrate, who said at [25] of his reasons:
The issues raised by the Accused in relation to the Court's jurisdiction and the City authority to bring a prosecution have been comprehensively and definitely addressed by a series of decision of the superior Courts. Those decisions and their escalating brevity reflect the lack of foundation in the arguments being persistently advanced by their misguided proponents. The propositions advanced by the Accused are based on fundamental misunderstandings and convoluted assertions as to the nature of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States, and the States' legislative powers to make laws for peace, order and good government: see Glew v Shire of Greenough[2006] WASCA 260; Krysiak v Hodgson[2009] WASCA114; Glew v Governor of Western Australia[2009] WASCA 123; Glew v City of Greater Geraldton[2012] WASCA 94; Glew v White[2012] WASC 100; Hedley v Spivey[2012] WASCA 116; Basham v City of Joondalup [2015] WASC 345.
10 Section 9 of the Criminal Appeals Act provides:
(1) The leave of the Supreme Court is required for each ground of appeal in an appeal under this Division.
(2) After an appeal is commenced, the Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal on a ground of appeal unless it is satisfied the ground has a reasonable prospect of succeeding.
(3) Unless the Supreme Court gives leave to appeal on at least one ground of appeal in an appeal, the appeal is to be taken to have been dismissed.
11 The appellant has no prospect of succeeding on any of the proposed grounds of appeal.
12 As none of the grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
0
6
1