Harkness v Roberts; Kyriazis v County Court of Victoria (No 2)

In the case of Harkness v Roberts; Kyriazis v County Court of Victoria (No 2), the appellants, Harkness and Kyriazis, challenged the orders of the Magistrates’ Court and County Court of Victoria respectively, which convicted them for committing summary road safety offences. Harkness was fined, while Kyriazis was discharged. Both appellants were represented by themselves, as litigants in person. The central issue before the court was whether the respective courts breached the principles of natural justice and the human right to a fair hearing by not providing adequate assistance to the appellants as unrepresented litigants. Additionally, the court had to consider if the magistrates' conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court examined whether the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court adequately assisted Harkness and Kyriazis, who appeared unrepresented. In Harkness's case, the magistrate dismissed his objections to jurisdiction, ordered his removal from the courtroom for misbehaviour, and proceeded with the hearing in his absence. The court assessed whether this conduct breached natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. For Kyriazis, the judge ordered his custody for contempt, placed him in the dock, and conducted a contentious hearing where Kyriazis was personally denigrated. The court scrutinized whether these actions constituted a breach of the appellant's rights. Furthermore, the court considered if the fair-minded observer might reasonably think that the judge could not impartially hear and determine the charges against Kyriazis.

The court concluded that both the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court failed to provide adequate assistance to the appellants as unrepresented litigants, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. The conduct of the magistrate in Harkness's case, particularly in summarily dismissing objections and proceeding without the appellant present, was found to be deficient. Similarly, the judge's handling of Kyriazis's case, including ordering his custody, placing him in the dock, and conducting a highly conflictual hearing, was deemed to have breached the appellant's rights. The court also found that the fair-minded observer would reasonably apprehend a bias in Kyriazis's case. Consequently, the orders of both courts were quashed, and the matters were remitted for rehearing.

The final orders of the court were to quash the orders of the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court, and to remit the matters for rehearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing.