Krysiak v Hodgson

[2009] WASC 16

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   KRYSIAK -v- HODGSON [2009] WASC 16

CORAM:   McKECHNIE J

HEARD:   16 JANUARY 2009

DELIVERED          :   16 JANUARY 2009

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1096 of 2008

BETWEEN:   TADEUSZ EDMUND KRYSIAK

Appellant

AND

PAUL RICHARD HODGSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :MAGISTRATE B A LANE

File No  :PE 37358 of 2008

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Incomprehensible grounds of appeal - Vexatious grounds challenging the authority of the magistrate - Dangers of self-litigation

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     No appearance

Respondent:     No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant:     No appearance

Respondent:     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260

Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General for Western Australia [2006] WASCA 231

1. McKECHNIE J:  The appellant was charged that on 2 September 2007, at Shelley, he drove a vehicle 7 kilometres in excess of the stipulated speed limit which was 70 kilometres.  He had gone through a speed camera.  At my direction the application for leave to appeal was listed for argument and the appellant notified.  The appellant has not appeared.

2. The appellant sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court on the prosecution notice before another Magistrate but was unsuccessful.  When he tried to challenge jurisdiction again before the presiding Magistrate, she correctly pointed out that the matter had been ruled upon and the trial then proceeded.

3. The police called the Multanova operator who gave evidence as to the conduct in relation to the car and the photograph taken.  The Magistrate correctly identified the legal principles and the burden of standard of proof and convicted the appellant who was then fined $75 together with costs.  It is from that conviction that he seeks leave to appeal.

4. The grounds of appeal number 33, and the application for relief number 7.  Ground 1 is simply incomprehensible. 

5. Grounds 2 to 10 are vexatious.  They seek in broad terms to advance an argument that there is some defect in the Court because the magistrates did not swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and presided over a 'Star Chamber'.

6. Arguments identical to this have been raised from time to time in the last few years and the Court of Appeal on each occasion has ruled against the argument: Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General for Western Australia [2006] WASCA 231; Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260. Any future appeals on the same grounds should be regarded as vexatious because the Court of Appeal's decision is final.

7. The grounds, in any event, have no reasonable prospects of success having regard to the law.  The law is not as the appellant would advance it.  The balance of the grounds display marked confusion as to the law, are vexatious and have no reasonable prospects of success. 

8. I will not refer to all of…