District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kirsten (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWDC 401 Hearing dates: 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 August 2024 Date of orders: 9 August 2024 Decision date: 09 August 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Accused — Charged with contempt of court — Detained in custody — To appear via audio visual link until verdict — Convicted of contempt of court — Penalty for contempt — sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the court
After trial guilty verdict — Detention application granted — Bail refused
After trial guilty verdict — Adjourned for sentence
Catchwords: CRIME — Child abduction — Contempt of court
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Self-represented accused
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Procedural and other rulings — Contempt of court — Insulting conduct — Summary hearing for contempt — Persistent disobedience — Attempts to disrupt proceedings — Talking over judge and prosecutor — Failure to ask questions — Demeaning questions and comments to witnesses — Penalty for contempt
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Persistent contempt of court — Ensuring a fair trial — Sovereign citizen — Refusal to accept jurisdiction of court — Dealing with contempts by accused in a jury trial — Perverting miscarriage — Ensuring continuation of the trial — Ensuring procedural fairness in the face of deliberate and persistent contempt of court
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Procedural and other rulings — Refusal of adjournment
MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings — No question that accused fit to be tried
SENTENCING — Penalties — Contempt — Rising of the court
CRIME — Bail — Detention application — Full-time custodial sentence inevitable
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
District Court Act1973 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney-General v Davis and Weldon (Court of Appeal (NSW), 23 July 1980 unrep)
Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252
Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Ex parteBeltanto; Re Prior [1963] SR (NSW) 190
Ex parte; Tuckerman Re Nash [1970] 3 NSWR 23
Island Maritime Limited v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328
Kenny v Ritter [2009] SASC 139
Lewis v Judge Ogden [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682
MacPherson v The Queen [1981] HCA 46; (1981) 147 CLR 512
Mahmood v Western Australia [2008] HCA 1; (2008) 232 CLR 397
Michel v The Queen [2009] UKPC 41; [2010] 1 WLR 879
Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court v Fajloun [2016] NSWSC 927
Continue reading R v Kirsten (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Kirsten (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWDC 401
- Case
- [2024] NSWDC 401
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether Kirsten's conduct constituted contempt of court, and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. The court had to balance the need to ensure a fair trial for the jury against Kirsten's persistent and deliberate attempts to pervert the course of justice. The court also had to consider whether Kirsten's conduct amounted to a contempt that was serious enough to warrant a rising of the court, which would result in his imprisonment until the trial concluded.
In its reasoning, the court found that Kirsten's conduct was indeed contemptuous and constituted a serious impediment to the administration of justice. The court held that Kirsten's persistent and deliberate attempts to disrupt the proceedings amounted to a rising of the court, warranting his imprisonment until the conclusion of the trial. The court also noted that despite Kirsten's claims of being a "sovereign citizen" and refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the court, his conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of the penalty. The court refused to grant an adjournment, finding that it was necessary to ensure the continuation of the trial and to maintain procedural fairness.
The final orders of the court were that Kirsten be detained in custody and appear via audio-visual link until the verdict. After the guilty verdict, Kirsten was convicted of contempt of court, and his penalty was imprisonment until the rising of the court. A subsequent detention application was granted, and bail was refused, given the inevitable full-time custodial sentence. The case was then adjourned for sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Accused — Charged with contempt of court — Detained in custody — To appear via audio visual link until verdict — Convicted of contempt of court — Penalty for contempt — sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the court
After trial guilty verdict — Detention application granted — Bail refused
After trial guilty verdict — Adjourned for sentence
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.