Wilson v Western Australia Police
[2014] WASCA 145
•8 AUGUST 2014
WILSON -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE [2014] WASCA 145
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 145 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:48/2014 | 23 MAY 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 8/08/14 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MAXWELL HUGH WILSON WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Application for leave to appeal against conviction Frivolous and vexatious proceedings Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bell v Cribb [2012] WASCA 234 Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289 Glew v Attorney General (WA) [2014] WASCA 93 Glew v City of Greater Geraldton [2012] WASCA 94 Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87 Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 93 Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260 Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCA Trans 520 Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14 Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138 Hedley v Spivey [2012] WASCA 116 Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASCA 114 O'Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96 Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire [2014] WASCA 5 Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General [2006] WASCA 231 Wilson v Western Australia Police [2014] WASC 77 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WILSON -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE [2014] WASCA 145 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT
Citation : WILSON -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE [2014] WASC 77
File No : SJA 1128 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal against conviction - Frivolous and vexatious proceedings - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bell v Cribb [2012] WASCA 234
Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289
Glew v Attorney General (WA) [2014] WASCA 93
Glew v City of Greater Geraldton [2012] WASCA 94
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 93
Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260
Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCA Trans 520
Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14
Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138
Hedley v Spivey [2012] WASCA 116
Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASCA 114
O'Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96
Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire [2014] WASCA 5
Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General [2006] WASCA 231
Wilson v Western Australia Police [2014] WASC 77
1 McLURE P: I agree with Buss JA.
2 BUSS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction.
3 On 18 October 2013, the appellant was convicted, after a trial in the Magistrates Court before Magistrate Maughan on that date, on three charges in prosecution notices.
4 The charges alleged:
(1) On 16 January 2011 at Boulder the appellant, being the driver of a motor vehicle (registered number 1DMY 938), and when required by a member of the police force to state his name and place of abode, refused to do so; contrary to s 53(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).
(2) On the same date and place the appellant drove a motor vehicle (registered number 1DMY 938) on a road, namely Leviathan Street, whilst not being a person authorised by pt IVA of the Road Traffic Act and whilst no longer authorised to drive, having been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence under a licence suspension order made under s 19 or s 43 of the Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA); contrary to s 49(1)(a) and s 49(3)(d) of the Road Traffic Act.
(3) On the same date and place the appellant obstructed Senior Constable Schildmann in the performance of the officer's functions; contrary to s 172(2) of the Criminal Code (WA).
5 The magistrate imposed fines totalling $1,000 and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.
6 The appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against his conviction. Commissioner Sleight refused leave and dismissed the appeal. See Wilson v Western Australia Police [2014] WASC 77.
7 The appellant has now applied for leave to appeal to this court against Commissioner Sleight's decision.
The proposed grounds of appeal
8 The proposed grounds of appeal to this court, as set out in the appellant's case, are these:
1. Commissioner Slight [sic] was wrong in law and fact when he used the Criminal Appeals Act 2004; this Act is repugnant to the Commonwealth Constitution 1901 section 73, therefore committing a fraud and 'Tort' on [the appellant].
2. Commissioner Slight [sic] was wrong in law and fact when he failed to recognise that the Supreme Court Act 1935 is repugnant to the Commonwealth Constitution 1901 and therefore he was required at law to declare the Act invalid, another 'Tort' on [the appellant].
3. Commissioner Slight [sic] was wrong in law and fact when he refused to remove himself from the Court when it was revealed to him that he was unlawfully appointed and sworn in, therefore committing another 'Tort' on [the appellant].
4. Commissioner Slight [sic] was wrong in law and fact when he conspired to overturn the Commonwealth Constitution 1901 ref: 24AA of the Crimes Act, another 'Tort' on [the appellant].
The appellant's written submissions
9 The appellant's written submissions read:
1. Section 73 of the Constitution (Cth) states that the people have a right to appeal from any Court. Any Act that restricts that right is unlawful unless the restriction is approved by referendum.
2. The Supreme Court Act of Western Australia purports to authorise the Parliament of Western Australia to control the Supreme Court of the State when in fact the Supreme Court is controlled by Chapter 111 [sic] of the Commonwealth Constitution.
3. Commissioner Slight [sic] sat in the Supreme Court of Western Australia under State Acts and Statutes and when it was revealed that he is required to sit under Chapter 111 [sic] of the Commonwealth Constitution, refused to leave the Court.
4. Commissioner Slight [sic] became an offender when he refused to sit under the Commonwealth Constitution Chapter 111 [sic] and sat under State Acts and Statutes. He was aiding the State Government is [sic] overturning the Commonwealth Constitution contrary to 24AA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). He was also sitting in contempt of the High Court of Australia.
The appellant's oral submissions
10 At the hearing McLure P told the appellant that his contentions had been repeatedly rejected by this court.
11 The appellant responded:
Yes. I understand. I understand what you're saying. But I would challenge your ability to constitute a court today. You're in the same criminal position as Commissioner Sleight and the challenge has already been put to the High Court. It is HCAP19 of Perth, High Court of Australia (appeal ts 2).
The merits of the proposed grounds of appeal
12 The appellant's proposed grounds of appeal and his submissions in support of them, or variations on the proposed grounds and his submissions, have been considered and rejected by this court on numerous occasions. See Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General [2006] WASCA 231; Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260 (special leave refused: Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCA Trans 520); Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289; Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14; Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASCA 114; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 93; Glew v City of Greater Geraldton [2012] WASCA 94; O'Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96; Hedley v Spivey [2012] WASCA 116; Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138; Bell v Cribb [2012] WASCA 234; Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire [2014] WASCA 5.
13 In Glew v Shire of Greenough the High Court (Gummow and Heydon JJ), in dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, said:
The District Court of Western Australia dismissed the applicants' appeal. In turn the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed a further appeal as 'entirely lacking in legal merit'. We agree.
14 The appellant's proceedings in this court are frivolous and vexatious.
15 The reference in his oral submissions to 'HCAP19 of Perth' appears to be to an application for special leave to appeal by the unsuccessful appellant in Glew v Attorney General (WA) [2014] WASCA 93. The application has not yet been dealt with by the High Court.
Conclusion
16 None of the proposed grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of success.
17 Leave to appeal should be refused and the appeal dismissed.
18 MAZZA JA: I agree with Buss JA.
0
15
1