Schokman v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

[2004] HCATrans 502

[2004] HCATrans 502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S604 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

MAURICE ARIAN SCHOKMAN

Applicant

and

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NEW SOUTH WALES)

First Respondent

DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2004, AT 11.46 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR M.A. SCHOKMAN appeared in person.

MR.D. COGSWELL, SC:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS A.M. MITCHELMORE, for the first respondent.  (instructed by NSW Director of Public Prosecutions)

GLEESON CJ:   In this matter, Mr Schokman, there is a certificate from the Deputy Registrar that she has been informed by the solicitor for the second respondent that the second respondent submits to the orders of the Court, save as to costs.  Yes, Mr Schokman, go ahead.  Just speak into that microphone there.

MR SCHOKMAN:   Your Honours, I have made some paperwork, and I do not have any legal representation, and I hope your Honours have read my supplementary application book.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes.

MR SCHOKMAN:   I have just made some other brief notes that I would like you to read.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.  Just give us a moment to read those, Mr Schokman?  Yes, go ahead.

MR SCHOKMAN:   That is what basically happened, you know, and I do not know how to explain to you but I really need to see a barrister.

GLEESON CJ:   Do you mean to say that you are applying for an adjournment of this application?

MR SCHOKMAN:   I would like to speak to a barrister, so the barrister can speak to you about all the legal points, you know, because I do not ‑ ‑ ‑

GLEESON CJ:   I need to know whether you are applying for an adjournment?

MR SCHOKMAN:   Sorry?

GLEESON CJ:   Are you applying for an adjournment?

MR SCHOKMAN:   If your Lords would direct me to a barrister, yes.

GLEESON CJ:   I am not directing you anywhere.  I want to know whether you are making an application for an adjournment.

MR SCHOKMAN:   No, because I have been to the Bar Association and I was thrown out from that office with all my paperwork because I did not have the money to pay a barrister, and I was told that if I do not leave the office that they will have the police arrest me, so I cannot speak to a barrister.

GLEESON CJ:   You go ahead and put whatever arguments you want to put during the time that is available to you.

MR SCHOKMAN:   I would like to say that I gave the police officer a breath analysis and that police officer – because the breath analysis was under the limit, he destroyed the breath analysis in front of me and then he took me back into the breath analysis room about 40 minutes later, and then the night sergeant was there in the breath analysis room.  He was spraying the room with the bottle of Windex, which I understand has got ethanol in it, and then the police officer took the bottle of Windex from the night sergeant and he made me sit down next to him, next to the breath analysis machine and he sprayed it all over the breath analysis machine, and inside the tube, and he told me to take the breath analysis test again.

I said, “No, I don’t want to because I have already done it, and you told me that I am 0.03 and that I was under the limit”, and I asked to speak to my niece’s husband who is a solicitor but that request was not granted.  So the night sergeant told the police officer to charge me with high range drink driving, and he did it, but I gave him a breath analysis and it showed that I was under the limit and then I told him that I am a taxi driver and I have been one for 20 years, and things got out of hand.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.  Is there anything else you want to say?

MR SCHOKMAN:   No.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.  Take a seat.  We do not need to hear Mr Cogswell.

This is an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.  We are of the view that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, and for that reason the application is dismissed.

AT 11.52 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED