Harkness v Roberts - [2024] VSCA 45

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2023 0023

ZENAAN HARKNESS	Applicant
v
PAUL ROBERTS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 March 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 45
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VSC 10 (Richards J)

---

COURTS AND JUDGES – Jurisdiction – Whether Supreme Court has power to confer jurisdiction on County Court – Application for leave to appeal – Where primary judge concluded that Supreme Court has no power to confer jurisdiction on County Court – Primary judge’s decision plainly correct – Proposed appeal having no prospects of success – Application for leave to appeal totally without merit – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Supreme Court Act 1986, ss 14C and 14D.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Unrepresented
Respondent:		Mr D Glynn
Solicitors
Applicant:
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA:

In June 2016, Zenaan Harkness (‘the applicant’) appeared before the Magistrates’ Court for a contested hearing of seven charges brought pursuant to the Road Safety Act 1986. There were four charges of unlicensed driving, two charges of driving an unregistered vehicle, and one charge of failing to comply with a notice requiring him to surrender his vehicle.
At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant, who appeared for himself, attempted to contest the court’s jurisdiction. In doing so, he asserted that the court had ‘not proven jurisdiction over [his] right to travel pursuant to the Blessing of Almighty God’. He also contended that the Road Safety Act did not apply to him.[1]
[1]This contention was obviously delusional: quite why the Road Safety Act might not apply to the applicant was never rationally explained by him. It may have had something to do with another assertion he made to the magistrate, that he stood before her Honour ‘as a soul in a flesh and blood body’. But how this differentiated him in any relevant way from any other person charged with offences under the Road Safety Act has never been the subject of any legally coherent explanation by the applicant in these proceedings.
During the course of the hearing, the magistrate evicted the applicant from the court due to his persistent misbehaviour,[2] The hearing continued in the applicant’s absence. At its conclusion, the magistrate convicted the applicant of six of the seven charges,[3] and fined him a total of $3,050.
[2]Some of the details of the applicant’s misbehaviour can be found in this Court’s decision in Roberts v Harkness (2018) 57 VR 334, 339–346 [19]–[20] (Maxwell P, Beach and Niall JJA) (‘Court of Appeal Reasons’).
[3]The seventh, a charge of unlicensed driving, was dismissed because the prosecution led no evidence.
In July 2016, pursuant to s 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law.
The applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Court was heard by Bell J over three days in March…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harkness v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Harkness v Roberts [2024] VSCA 45
Case: [2024] VSCA 45
Decision Date: 26 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harkness v Roberts involved an application for leave to appeal from a decision made by a County Court judge. The applicant, Harkness, sought to appeal the County Court's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Supreme Court had the power to confer jurisdiction on the County Court. Roberts, the respondent, opposed the application, contending that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to transfer jurisdiction from one court to another. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve centred on the interpretation and scope of the Supreme Court Act 1986, particularly sections 14C and 14D. The primary judge had already concluded that the Supreme Court did not have the power to confer jurisdiction on the County Court, and Harkness sought to challenge this decision. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the primary judge's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions was correct and whether the proposed appeal had any prospects of success.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, held that the primary judge's conclusion was plainly correct. The court found that the Supreme Court Act did not empower the Supreme Court to confer jurisdiction on the County Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasised that the proposed appeal had no prospects of success, as it was totally without merit. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the primary judge's decision and the existing jurisdictional boundaries between the Supreme Court and the County Court.

The Supreme Court made no orders for costs in relation to the application for leave to appeal, as it was considered totally without merit.

Orders