Registrar of the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory v Maunsell
[2025] ACTMC 14
•24 July 2025
MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Registrar of the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory v Maunsell |
Citation: | [2025] ACTMC 14 |
Hearing Date: | 3 July 2025 |
Decision Date: | 24 July 2025 |
Before: | Chief Magistrate Walker |
Decision: | See orders in [54]. |
Catchwords: | CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT – contempt proceedings – application to purge contempt – sincere and genuine apology – commitment to pay costs – explanation for contempt – limited apology – Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) |
Legislation Cited: | Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 307 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 2501, 2502, 2506 |
Cases Cited: | Jones v Toben [2009] FCA 354; (2009) 255 ALR 238 Caratti v Boban Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2015] WASC 139 Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King-Emperor [1945] AC 264 Stuart v Brown (1996) 17 WAR 525 Magistrates’ Court at Prahran v Murphy [1997] 2 VR 186 Allen v The Queen (2013) 36 VR 565 Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525 Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69 O’Connor v Hough [2016] QSC 4; 2 Qd R 543 Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 306; (2018) 98 NSWLR 1002 R v McDaniel (Cliff) (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 44 R v Ogawa [2009] QCA 397; [2011] 2 Qd R 350 Longhurst Homes Ltd v Killen [2008] EWCA Civ 402 CJ v Flintshire Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 393 Khoury v Kirwan (No 4) [2021] VSC 333 Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Michalik [2004] NSWSC 1259; (2004) 52 ACSR 115 Commissioner for Fair Trading v Youngdown Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 646 Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309 R v Hinch (No 2) [2013] VSC 554 |
Parties: | Registrar of the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Applicant) Stephen Paul Maunsell (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Skye Jerome (Plaintiff) John Masters (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Government Solicitor (Plaintiff) Marjason & Marjason Solicitors (Defendant) | |
File Number: | AP 28 of 2025 |
CHIEF MAGISTRATE WALKER:
Introduction
1․The Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, is before the Court in relation to a charge of contempt contrary to s 307(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) (the Act) by his conduct on 22 February 2023, 15 June 2023 and 7 September 2023. The matter commenced by Originating Application dated 16 April 2025. It proceeded on the Amended Originating Application dated 13 June 2025.
2․If found guilty, it is open to the Court to punish the Defendant by making any sentencing order available under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (see r 2506(2) of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) (the CPRs)).
The Issues
3․The present question for determination is twofold:
(a)Is the contempt proved; and
(b)If so, whether to accept or reject Mr Maunsell’s application to purge his contempt.
Is the Contempt Proved?
4․The first of these can be disposed of uncontroversially. The Plaintiff, as the individual asserting the contempt, bears the onus of proof in relation to the conduct which is said to constitute the contempt (see Jones v Toben [2009] FCA 354; (2009) 255 ALR 238 at p. 259 per Justice Lander; Caratti v Boban Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2015] WASC 139 at [85] per Justice Mitchell). The criminal standard of proof applies.
5․The Plaintiff relies on a bundle of transcripts and court audio excerpts from 22 February 2023, 15 June 2023 and 7 September 2023, marked exhibit “HB-1”. This material evidences several of Mr Maunsell’s appearances before the ACT Magistrates Court, as a self-represented litigant, in relation to a family violence order application in which he was the Respondent.
6․Section 307(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) provides:
(1)A person is in contempt of the Magistrates Court if the person –
(a)contravenes an order of the court or an undertaking given to the court; or
(b)commits a contempt in the face or in the hearing of the court; or
(c)commits any other contempt of court.
7․These proceedings allege contempt under s 307(1)(b) of the Act, namely contempt in the face or in the hearing of the court. Such contempt may manifest in many forms. The relevant common law test will be made out where a person has engaged in words or conduct which interferes, or may have the effect of interfering, with the administration of justice (see Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King-Emperor [1945] AC 264 at p. 266; Stuart v Brown (1996) 17 WAR 525 at p. 531 per Justice Owen). Disrespect or defiance towards the court may have such effect (see Magistrates’ Court at Prahran v Murphy [1997] 2 VR 186 at p. 203 per Justice Charles; Allen v The Queen (2013) 36 VR 565 at p. 574 per Justice Priest). This form of contempt is criminal in nature (see Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525 at p. 530), albeit with civil procedure rules applying (see Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69 at [99] per Justice Beazley; O’Connor v Hough [2016] QSC 4; 2 Qd R 543 at p. 547 per Justice Burns; Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 306; (2018) 98 NSWLR 1002 at p. 1007). Central to the development of this doctrine has been the preservation of the court’s authority and character (see R v McDaniel (Cliff) (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 44 at p. 46).
8․Throughout the proceedings, on the three separate occasions, the Defendant is alleged to have engaged in the following contemptuous conduct, in summary:
(a)repeatedly interrupting and disrupting proceedings of the Court;
(b)addressing the Court in a baselessly offensive manner;
(c)impugning the integrity of the sitting Magistrates and other Magistrates by baselessly alleging they are corrupt;
(d)baselessly impugning the integrity of officers of the Court, Counsel and solicitor, by alleging that they are liars and corrupt;
(e)wilfully and baselessly insulting the sitting Magistrate and other Magistrates;
(f)showing disregard for the authority of the Court;
(g)failing to comply with the court process, and
(h)refusing to cease such conduct at the Magistrate’s request.
9․The Originating Application references excerpts of court transcripts, as set out in exhibit HB-1, in support of each allegation. These interactions are captured in the relevant court audio files. The Defendant’s tone and volume are consistent with the characterisation of the allegations in the Grounds of the Application.
10․The Defendant has not challenged any of the conduct alleged by the Plaintiff. In his Affidavit dated 25 June 2025, Mr Maunsell admits to engaging in the conduct as outlined and to committing contempt. The Defendant formalised this admission on the record before the Court on 3 July 2025.
11․Clearly the unduly argumentative, highly insulting and baselessly accusatory conduct engaged in by Mr Maunsell interfered with the proper administration of justice and had the effect of undermining the authority of the Court.
12․I am satisfied that the Defendant’s conduct during the proceedings amounts to contempt in the face or in the hearing of the court to the requisite standard, that being, beyond a reasonable doubt (see Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525).
13․The contempt is proved.
Purge
14․This leaves the second question for determination, namely, the Defendant’s application to purge his contempt. In this context, it is appropriate to set out the procedural history of the matter more fulsomely.
Procedural History
15․On 17 October 2023, Magistrate Lawton directed Registrar Banks to apply to the Court for Mr Stephen Maunsell to be punished for contempt, pursuant to CPR 2502. The Plaintiff, the Registrar of the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, filed an Originating Application on 16 April 2025, alongside a supporting Affidavit affirmed by Helen Banks on 8 April 2025, pursuant to CPR 2501(2)(b).
16․This application sought the following orders:
(a)A declaration that the Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, is guilty of contempt of court in contravention of s 307(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 by his conduct on 22 February 2023;
(b)A declaration that the Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, is guilty of contempt of court in contravention of s 307(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 by his conduct on 15 June 2023;
(c)A declaration that the Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, is guilty of contempt of court in contravention of s 307(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 by his conduct on 7 September 2023;
(d)The Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, be punished for contempt of court in accordance with law; and
(e)Any other orders that the Court considers appropriate.
17․The matter was first before the ACT Magistrates Court on 7 May 2025. On that occasion, the ACT Government Solicitor (ACTGS) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Director of Public Prosecutions having declined to prosecute the matter. As personal service had not been effected as required by CPR 2501(4), the matter was adjourned.
18․On 21 May 2025, ACTGS again appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Ms Natasha Goode of Marjason & Marjason Solicitors appeared on behalf of the Defendant, who had been served. Ms Goode was in the process of instructing counsel and the matter was adjourned to 11 June 2025 by consent.
19․On that occasion, Mr J Masters of Counsel, instructed by Ms Goode, appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Ms Jerome, of Counsel, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff.
20․Pursuant to orders by consent, further documents were filed.
21․An Amended Originating Application was filed with the Court on 13 June 2025 by the Plaintiff. No substantive amendments were made to the grounds of the application or the particulars of the contempt alleged. The orders sought by the Plaintiff were amended to read as follows:
(a)A declaration that the Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, is guilty of contempt of court in contravention of s 307(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 by his conduct on 22 February 2023, 15 June 2023, and 7 September 2023;
(b)The Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, be punished for contempt of court in accordance with law;
(c)That the Defendant, Stephen Maunsell, pay the Plaintiff’s costs of, and incidental to, the proceeding; and
(d)Any other orders that the Court considers appropriate.
22․A Notice of Intention to Respond was filed with the Court on 24 June 2025. In the Notice of Intention to Respond, the Defendant indicated his intention to respond to the Plaintiff’s Originating Application, as amended, in submitting to all orders of the Court except as to costs. The Defendant also noted his intention to file and serve an admission of the contemptuous conduct as an attempt to purge his contempt.
23․An admission in the form of an Affidavit affirmed by the Defendant was filed on 25 June 2025. In his affidavit the Defendant admits to engaging in conduct amounting to contempt of court on three occasions: 22 February 2023, 15 June 2023 and 7 September 2023. The Defendant acknowledged his conduct as having undermined both the administration of justice and authority of the Court. The Defendant contextualised his actions as occurring amid difficult family circumstances and relationships at the time, however, concludes his affidavit with an apology, and a pledge to respect the Court in all future dealings.
Law of Contempt – Purging and Apologies
24․Having found the contempt proved, it is necessary to consider whether the admission and apology provided by Mr Maunsell should be accepted on his application as having effectively purged his contempt. An apology may be deemed sufficient to do so (see R v Ogawa [2009] QCA 397; [2011] 2 Qd R 350 at p. 397 per Justice Keane). In determining whether to accept or reject an application to purge, the Court may have regard to the Defendant’s sincerity and genuineness, as demonstrated by the terms of an apology, the timing of any apology, and any future assurances regarding conduct (see Longhurst Homes Ltd v Killen [2008] EWCA Civ 402 at [16] per Lord Justice Hughes; CJ v Flintshire Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 393 at [6] per Lord Justice Wilson). The Court may be further persuaded of a contemnor’s sincerity if they have offered to pay the aggrieved person’s costs on an indemnity basis (see Khoury v Kirwan (No 4) [2021] VSC 333 at [112] per Justice Dixon). A contemnor’s expression of remorse and contrition is relevant to penalty; it is open to the Court to accept an apology and take no further action (see Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Michalik [2004] NSWSC 1259; (2004) 52 ACSR 115 at p. 123 per Justice Palmer; Commissioner for Fair Trading v Youngdown Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 646; Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309 at pp. 314 and 318 per President Kirby).
Application to Purge Contempt – 3 July 2025
25․The ultimate question for determination in this matter is whether Mr Maunsell’s apology, as set out in his Affidavit, and confirmed in Court, was a genuine and sincere one, so as to purge him of his contemptuous acts. This is a question to be decided on the balance of probabilities (see R v Hinch (No 2) [2013] VSC 554 at [35]).
Costs
26․I note that the Defendant reserves his position on the question of costs. Whilst there may well be issues of impecuniosity behind this which could impact on his capacity to meet a costs order, in reserving his position, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate commitment to a matter commonly relied on by courts in assessing the genuineness of a Defendant’s desire to purge their contempt.
Apology
27․As to the genuineness of his apology, the Plaintiff required the Defendant for cross-examination on his affidavit.
Examination in Chief
28․In examination in chief, led by Mr Masters, Mr Maunsell affirmed the information set out in his Affidavit as being true and correct, without demur.
Cross-Examination
29․The Defendant was cross-examined by Ms Jerome for over an hour, wherein the genuineness of his apology and remorse was robustly tested.
30․The Defendant confirmed that he did not draft his affidavit but repeatedly stated that he adhered to its contents.
31․Ms Jerome guided Mr Maunsell and the Court through various excerpts of the transcripts from each proceeding. It was put to the Defendant that he ought to have known how to appropriately address judicial officers, not to answer telephone calls in the courtroom, and not to leave whilst a decision was being handed down. Mr Maunsell disagreed with each of these propositions and explained he did not have sufficient knowledge of legal etiquette and practice at the time.
32․When asked to elaborate on what Mr Maunsell meant by “I regret my actions” in [14] of his Affidavit, the Defendant explained:
Looking at what happened, I regret my actions and I can now see that my actions were not acceptable and those people in the courtroom shouldn’t have been spoken to that way. I can now look back on it and go, ‘Yes, I accept I was wrong. I take responsibility for that and I absolutely apologise to those people that – that I offended during those times.’ That’s what that means.
33․When asked to specify the exact actions the Defendant regretted, Mr Maunsell answered, “[u]sing profane language, [and] not following process”. On several occasions throughout the cross-examination, it was put to the Defendant that the nature of his behaviour in the proceedings was disrespectful; he agreed.
34․Ms Jerome then sought to have the Defendant resile from the disrespectful statements he made towards judicial officers and legal practitioners. The Defendant did so in full, with the exception of comments regarding Magistrate Taylor (as Her Honour was at the time) being a “raving feminist”, and Mr Maher, counsel, and Ms Kennedy, solicitor, both being “liars”. The Defendant considered these statements to be truthful and unable to be taken back.
35․Ms Jerome questioned the Defendant as to the timing of his apology to the Court. In [14] of Mr Maunsell’s Affidavit, he characterised the document as being his “first opportunity to offer a formal apology”. It was put to the Defendant that there had been ample opportunity to apologise during the court proceedings after judicial officers warned him to adjust and correct his behaviour or be in contempt. The Defendant admitted that no apology, even of an informal kind, was offered on any of these occasions.
36․Ms Jerome questioned the Defendant on when he first reflected on the nature of his behaviour. Mr Maunsell was forthright with the Court that those reflections came after he had been charged with these offences. It was finally put to the Defendant that he had sought to diminish his behaviour during the cross-examination to avoid prosecution and sentence. Mr Maunsell disagreed.
Submissions
37․On behalf of the Defendant, Mr Masters submitted that I ought to accept Mr Maunsell’s apology as purging the contempt. Mr Masters characterised Mr Maunsell’s demeanour and evidence in cross-examination as impressive. For well over an hour, the Defendant had behaved respectfully towards the Court and assisted to answer all questions, even upon being heavily pressed. The Defendant also demonstrated insight in being able to distinguish between remarks which were contemptuous and ones which he believed to be grounded in truth. This behaviour, Mr Masters submitted, revealed the maturing of his client since 2023, as well as the sincerity of his apology before the Court.
38․In response, Ms Jerome invited the Court to reject Mr Maunsell’s application to purge his contempt. She submitted that the evidence of the Defendant regarding his remorse and insight into previous behaviour had not been genuine. The Affidavit affirmed by the Defendant, Ms Jerome submitted, was brief and made general statements of apology. Further, the opportunity to apologise had presented itself to the Defendant on each occasion in the courtroom after a Magistrate had communicated dissatisfaction with Mr Maunsell’s behaviour and threatened contempt. Ms Jerome submitted that the Defendant’s refusal to resile from some of his comments also demonstrated limited insight and a lack of genuine remorse. She characterised Mr Maunsell’s conduct and responses throughout the cross-examination as an active attempt to diminish his behaviour. Together, Ms Jerome submitted, these reasons sufficed to refuse the application.
Evidence from the Transcripts – 22 February 2023, 15 June 2023, 7 September 2023
39․In assessing Mr Maunsell’s evidence, it is prudent to closely consider his responses to the questions posed in cross-examination alongside his dealings with judicial officers and court staff, as documented through transcripts.
Explanation for Contempt
40․In cross-examination it was put to Mr Maunsell that he ought to have been familiar with courtroom etiquette. The Defendant disagreed with these propositions, instead pointing to his lack of formal legal training. The following interaction took place:
Ms Jerome: It’s correct, isn’t it, that with your experience of being in court, that as at 22 February 2023, you were well aware of the formal procedures in a courtroom?
Mr Maunsell: Yes and no. The Magistrates Court’s different – very, very different to the Family Court.
Ms Jerome: You understand or you understood as at 22 February 2023 that when a judge speaks to you that you are to listen?
Mr Maunsell: Yes.
Ms Jerome: And you are not to talk over the magistrate?
Mr Maunsell: I do now.
Ms Jerome: Well, I suggest that after 10 years in court, you knew on that first occasion in the Magistrates Court, 22 February 2023, that you knew not to speak over the magistrate?
Mr Maunsell: No, because the large majority of time in the Family Court for seven, eight, nine years, I was represented. I was financially destroyed ---
…
Ms Jerome: Now, on 22 February 2023, you understand that you were to address the magistrate as ‘your Honour’?
Mr Maunsell: No, because I’ve been given no formal training in courtroom procedures or – or anything.
Ms Jerome: I suggest to you, you knew at least not to address the judge by their first name?
Mr Maunsell: No. As I said, I’ve received no training on procedures or what to address people by or – or anything like that. I have – I’ve flown by the seat of my pants.
41․The following interactions took place in 2023 between Mr Maunsell and the Court.
10:04am, Wednesday, 22 February 2023
Mr Maunsell: The words out of her mouth last week was ‘I didn’t know Steve had any representation’ yet she’s confirmed to you that she sent emails on these – in November – sorry – December, January, February. So she’s lied and there’s the evidence.
His Honour (Magistrate Temby): No, she hasn’t.
Mr Maunsell: Yes, she has.
His Honour: I’m going to ask you to stop arguing with me.
Mr Maunsell: Stop arguing with me.
…
Mr Maunsell: Fuck it, I’ll run it. You’re a bunch of corrupt cunts, but I’ll run it.
His Honour: If you continue to use that language, I will have you removed.
Mr Maunsell: Well, if you don’t believe evidence that’s right in front of you, you’re corrupt. I’ve provided evidence, black and fucking white evidence and you just disregard it. You disregard it.
His Honour: Would you like some time to calm down?
Mr Maunsell: No. Why could I calm down when I’m in front of a corrupt judge who doesn’t believe black and white evidence. Why?
His Honour: I’m giving you a lot of latitude, Mr Maunsell.
Mr Maunsell: Great.
His Honour: But you are testing my patience.
…
Mr Maunsell: Don’t speak to me like that.
His Honour: You’re coming very close to being taken out of here.
…
His Honour: Okay. I’ve had enough, I said, of that language.
Mr Maunsell: It’s in the English dictionary.
His Honour: Okay.
Mr Maunsell: If you don’t like words that are in the English dictionary, go and speak to the person who writes the English dictionary. It’s in the English dictionary. It’s a valid word.
His Honour: You are intelligent enough to know there is a difference between words that exist in the dictionary and words that ought to be spoken in a particular place.
9:15AM, Thursday, 7 September 2023
Mr Maunsell: He’s a lying piece of shit.
Deputy Registrar Marshall: Sir, you can make your point without the use of that language.
…
Deputy Registrar Marshall: I am going to give you one more warning about your language. And if you ---
Mr Maunsell: If you don’t like the English language I suggest you take up a new language.
Deputy Registrar Marshall: If you keep repeating derogatory language in this courtroom I will give you a direction to leave the court premises.
[Matter transferred to Magistrate Lawton – 10:22AM]
His Honour (Magistrate Lawton): I’m standing this matter down until 2.15 pm.
Mr Maunsell: In front of Theakston.
His Honour: No.
Mr Maunsell: Have you read my submissions?
His Honour: Before myself. Mr Maunsell, if you continue to interrupt me I will be dealing with you for contempt.
Mr Maunsell: How about contempt for you?
…
His Honour: I’m going to adjourn the court. I will ask the Sheriff’s officers to escort you from the court if you do not leave. Otherwise, you have the choice to leave this court freely or I will be dealing with you for contempt. Do you understand?
Mr Maunsell: Fine. I shall come back at 2.15.
His Honour: 2.15 is what I told you to do Mr Maunsell.
Mr Maunsell: Well, you just told me to leave as well. So ---
His Honour: Yes, because you continue to interrupt and interrupt the processes ---
Mr Maunsell: I am asking quite legitimate questions.
His Honour: You continue to interrupt this court. That is contempt.
…
[Matter recalled before Magistrate Lawton]
Mr Maunsell: You showed that this morning. You showed that a couple of years ago. So you don’t give a shit what I’ve got to say. You don’t read ---
His Honour: All right, just mind your language please.
Mr Maunsell: It’s in the English dictionary. If you don’t like it ---
His Honour: I don’t like the fact that you are using what is pejorative terms in court. And you have been repeatedly warned about that. Ultimately, if you continue to engage in offensive language ---
42․Courtroom procedures and norms do not constitute any kind of specialised knowledge held only by legal practitioners. Rather, accordance with them is expected of all courtroom participants. Upon receiving these warnings, the Defendant continued to behave contrary to courtroom etiquette. On multiple occasions Mr Maunsell was warned not to use offensive language in a courtroom, not to interrupt a judicial officer or judicial processes, not to engage in an argument with a judicial officer, and to leave the courtroom as directed. I thus afford little weight to the Defendant’s claims in cross-examination that he was not aware of or familiar with these procedures. Whilst I accept that Mr Maunsell was emotionally dysregulated as a result of difficult experiences with the Court system more broadly and over a number of years, I cannot accept that his conduct was the product of ignorance as to what was appropriate. The fact that he asserts that he behaved so badly because he was not aware of what was expected in Court undermines the genuineness of his apology.
Limited Apology
43․Mr Maunsell was also invited to take back the disrespectful comments he made in relation to judicial officers and officers of the Court. He did so, with the exception of remarks made about Magistrate Taylor (as Her Honour then was), and legal practitioners, Ms Kennedy and Mr Maher. The remarks form part of the particularised conduct relied on by the Plaintiff to establish contempt and admitted by the Defendant in his affidavit. I am obliged to consider the significance of this.
44․In relation to Magistrate Taylor, the Defendant referred to her, inter alia, as a “raving feminist”.
45․In cross-examination, the following interaction took place:
Ms Jerome: In regards to Magistrate Taylor, I invite you to take back the comments as she – and I say Magistrate Taylor as she was known then. I invite you to take back the comments that she was a raving feminist.
Mr Maunsell: That’s in an interview from her. She quotes it herself. So I’m quoting her in that.
Ms Jerome: Well, I’m inviting you to take back the comment. Do you take it back or not?
Mr Maunsell: She said it herself.
Ms Jerome: So you don’t take it back?
Mr Maunsell: I can’t take back what she said.
Ms Jerome: No, I’m talking about what you said about her.
Mr Maunsell: I’m quoting her. I can give you the- I can ---
Ms Jerome: So you don’t take it back?
Mr Maunsell: I can’t take back what she said.
46․It is important to have regard to the context in which the term was used by the Defendant on 22 February 2023. Her Honour was not the presiding Magistrate that day. The Defendant’s comments were not made as part of an application for her Honour to recuse herself. Rather, as part of his submission to Magistrate Temby as to why a family violence order should be amended, the Defendant said: “[w]e all know who the magistrate was who signed the FVO, Louise Taylor, raving feminist, man hater, the Duluth model, it was a man’s fault. Always it was a man’s fault, can never be anything else.”
47․The Defendant fails to appreciate that his use of the phrase “raving feminist” in a derogatory way to impugn Her Honour’s impartiality is entirely distinguishable from any use she may have made of the term to describe herself in an out of court context. It was clearly intended to support his position that she was corrupt and had made her decision because of a philosophical bias without proper regard to the evidence before her. His inability or unwillingness to appreciate the distinction is concerning.
48․In relation to Mr Maher and Ms Kennedy being “liars”, the following interaction took place during cross-examination:
Ms Jerome: I invite you to take back your comment about Mr James Maher, who is a barrister who appeared against you, that he is a corrupt liar.
Mr Maunsell: The transcripts show that he lied. I can’t take that back.
Ms Jerome: So you don’t take that back?
Mr Maunsell: It’s in the transcript that he lied.
Ms Jerome: In regards to Ms Kennedy, I invite you to take back your comment that she was dishonest.
Mr Maunsell: It’s in the transcripts that she lied.
Ms Jerome: So you don’t take that back?
Mr Maunsell: I can’t take back the fact that she lied.
49․The transcripts do not provide evidence that these officers of the Court lied. The Defendant’s opinion is the product of his particular perspective of what had occurred and how it was being represented to the Court. The Defendant’s adherence to these comments is at odds with the admissions and apology he purports to make in his Affidavit.
50․Mr Masters, on behalf of the Defendant, submitted that I ought to accept these interactions as reflective of Mr Maunsell’s insight and maturity since the contemptuous conduct. Mr Maunsell’s capacity to distinguish between disrespectful comments, and those grounded in truth, Mr Masters submitted, demonstrate the genuineness of his apology. Respectfully, even if it were established that the Defendant’s opinions were “grounded in truth”, which I do not accept, the actual truth of the aspersions cast by the defendant’s comments is not established and cannot amount to any form of defence or mitigation of the charge.
Conclusion
51․In summary, the Defendant was clearly on notice that his conduct was unacceptable during the periods of contempt, his apology came only after proceedings were instituted against him, he has not adhered to the fulsome apology to all the conduct alleged, and has not offered to meet the costs of these proceedings in even a limited form.
52․Whilst I appreciate that Mr Maunsell demonstrated significant fortitude, humility and restraint in his evidence before me, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that his apology is sufficiently broad to rectify the consequences of his admitted conduct.
53․I conclude that the contempt is not purged.
Orders
54․I make the following orders:
(1)A declaration under s 307(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) that the Defendant committed a contempt of court by his conduct and behaviour on 22 February 2023, 15 June 2023 and 7 September 2023.
(2)I reject the Defendant’s application to purge his contempt.
(3)The Defendant is to be punished for contempt of court in accordance with law.
| I certify that the preceding fifty-four [54] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Decision of her Honour Chief Magistrate Walker. Associate to Chief Magistrate Walker Date: 29 July 2025 |
0
15
3