Lacey v Yates

[2014] ACTSC 398

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Lacey v Yates

Citation:

[2014] ACTSC 398

Hearing Date(s):

16 December 2014

DecisionDate:

16 December 2014

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed.

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Procedure – Australian Capital Territory – appeal from Magistrates Court

Legislation Cited:

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5140

Cases Cited:

Lacey v Earle [2014] ACTSC 397

Parties:

Lee Anne Lacey (Appellant)

Paul Ronald Yates (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented (Appellant)

Ms J Campbell (Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s):

SCA 61 of 2014

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Magistrates Court

Before:  Special Magistrate Doogan

Date of Decision:         9 July 2014

Case Title:  Yates v Lacey

Court File Number(s):   CC 7731 of 2013

MURRELL CJ:

1. This is the second appeal by Ms Lacey against orders of the Magistrates Court that has been listed before the Court this morning.  Like the other appeal, Lacey v Earle [2014] ACTSC 397 (Lacey v Earle), the appellant claims that the Magistrates Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with Aboriginal peoples such as herself.

1. For the reasons given in Lacey v Earl, it is also appropriate to deal with this matter pursuant to r 5140 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) (CPR).

1. The appellant was called this afternoon (when the appeal was listed for hearing), and failed to appear.  She is a patient at the Canberra Hospital as noted in Lacey v Earle. 

1. The arguments raised on this appeal are, as far as can be gleaned, identical to those in the matter of Lacey v Earle.  For the reasons given in Lacey v Earle, the appeal is unmeritorious.

1. Having regard to the unmeritorious nature of the appeal, and the availability of an application to set aside any order made in the absence of a party pursuant to s 5140(3)(a) of the CPR, the Court will proceed with the appeal pursuant to r 5140.

1. For the reasons given in Lacey v Earle, the appeal is dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding six [6] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell.

Associate:

Date:  10 February 2015