Szita v Queen

[2003] VSC 219

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 5377 of 2003

MICHAEL JOHN SZITA	Plaintiff
v
THE QUEEN	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Szita v The Queen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 219

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Queen	Mr A.G. Burns	James Syme, Victorian Government Solicitor
For Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr R. Gibson	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

1. The plaintiff, Michael John Szita, by summons on originating motion respectively filed on 15 and 14 April 2003, has sought relief “by way of an Originating Motion/Writ of Mandamus”.  The defendant is The Queen.  The summons is directed to two persons.  The first is named as “Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Guelph, the Queen, Buckingham Palace, London”, and the second, “John Michael Landy, the Governor, Government House, Melbourne”.

1. The originating motion, which is a lengthy document, essentially by paragraph 8 seeks physical evidence of the lawful position of the Queen in the Commonwealth of Australia, physical evidence of the lawful position of the Queen in the State of Victoria, physical evidence of the lawful contractual obligation, relationship and responsibility between the Queen and the plaintiff, and adherence to consensual obligations documented in the annexures to the motion, which are in the first instance a copyright notice, and in the second instance a security agreement notice.  The motion contends that in the absence of such proof, and of other matter contended for in the motion, “Case no. Q01243326 The Queen v. Michael Szita©, a juristic person, is misconceived” (paragraph 2 of the motion).

1. The background to this proceeding is that Mr Szita has been charged with a number of criminal offences arising, the prosecution says, at Corio on 24 April 2002, of unlawful assault of certain young women.  He has been committed for trial in the County Court.  The committal was on 2 April 2003.  There is due to be a case conference in the County Court at Geelong on 16 June 2003 and one would anticipate, in the normal course of the state of the Geelong list, the trial proper would be held by the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004.  These proceedings by Mr Szita respectively were filed on 15 and 14 April 2003.

1. Mr Szita has obviously done a lot of research on the matters he relies upon and there is also, as I have said, a volume of detailed material in his originating motion.  He essentially says that he has copyright to the name, Michael John Szita, and that he has a defence by that copyright shield and that the Queen is a foreign corporation and has not power to be a party to any proceeding against him.  Therefore, he maintains, the record is incompetent, the proceedings against him are incompetent and he seeks an order protecting himself from the pursuit of incompetent proceedings.

1. Unfortunately I am not persuaded by his submissions.  It appears to me that it is the proceedings he has instituted in this court that are legally incompetent, not the converse as he maintains.  It is plain, as a matter of law, that there is no basis in law or in fact for his submissions for proceedings in this court nor any legally competent course for these proceedings by him to pursue.  The remedy of mandamus secures the performance of a duty of a public character.  In this case, the Queen is performing that duty by prosecuting alleged crimes.  For convictions, such matters must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Whether such proof is adduced is yet to be determined.  The law consistently, and rightly, sets its face against fragmentation of the criminal process.  Finally, the plaintiff’s claim as to shield by copyright fails by virtue of s.8 Copyright Act 1965 (Cwth).

1. I have had helpful submissions, both orally and in writing, from Mr Burns for the first defendant and from Mr Gibson for the Director of Public Prosecutions.  I will place those submissions on the court file so that they are publicly available.  I have directed that a copy of these reasons be produced in written form once transcribed and made available to Mr Szita from the prothonotary's office, where he can obtain them and have them so that he can read them.  For the reasons I have stated, I am satisfied that there is no basis in law or in fact for the summons or the originating motion.  They are misconceived and I dismiss the summons and the motion and I dismiss it finally.

1. There is a cross summons, filed on 14 May 2003, by the first defendant against the plaintiff, seeking judgment for the first defendant in this proceeding.  For the reasons I have stated, I grant that relief and enter judgment accordingly.

(Discussion ensued re costs.)

I order that the plaintiff pay the costs of The Queen and of the Director on an indemnity basis.