Wilson v Western Australia Police
[2014] WASC 77
•12 MARCH 2014
WILSON -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE [2014] WASC 77
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 77 | |
| 12/03/2014 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1128/2013 | 28 FEBRUARY 2014 | |
| Coram: | COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT | 28/02/14 | |
| 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 Appeal against decision of magistrate authorising the issue of a bench warrant Whether a decision under s 6 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE A MAUGHAN
File No : KA 1176 of 2011, KA 1178 of 2011, KA 1931 of 2011
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against decision of magistrate authorising the issue of a bench warrant - Whether a decision under s 6 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr J D Berson
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
- COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT:
(This decision was delivered extempore and edited from the transcript.)
1 The appellant, Mr Wilson, appeared in the Magistrates Court in Kalgoorlie before His Honour Magistrate A Maughan on 18 October 2013 on three charges; namely:
1. On 16 January 2011 at Boulder being the driver of a vehicle, registered number 1 DMY 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 drove a motor vehicle, namely a Ford Futura, registered number, 1 DMY 938, on a road, namely Leviathan Street, whilst not being a person authorised by pt IVA of the Road Traffic Act and was 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 obstructed Senior Constable Schildmann, in the performance of the officers functions; contrary to s 172(2) of the Criminal Code (WA).
2 Following a trial, Mr Wilson was convicted of all three charges. He was fined a total of $1,000 and ordered to pay costs.
3 The proceedings before the magistrate got off to a rocky start. This is revealed by the transcript:
JSO: From the W listing, calling the matter of Wilson, Maxwell Wilson.
HIS HONOUR: Is your name Maxwell Hugh Wilson?
WILSON MR: Sorry?
HIS HONOUR: Is your name Maxwell Hugh Wilson?
WILSON, MR: Are you reading it from the document that they have just given me or they gave me the other day?
HIS HONOUR: I have asked you - - -
WILSON, MR: All in - and the surname in capital letters.
HIS HONOUR: I'm asking you, is your name Maxwell Hugh Wilson.
WILSON, MR: My name is Maxwell Hugh. Wilson is my family name.
HIS HONOUR: Okay.
WILSON, MR: And I am a (indistinct) sovereign (indistinct) of the queen, Elizabeth II - - -
HIS HONOUR: Do you reside - - -
WILSON, MR: And I'm a commonwealth public officer and I will ask you today, first of all, is this a court - a gathering under the sovereign?
HIS HONOUR: This is a court - Magistrates Court convened under the provisions of the Magistrates Court Act. Mr Wilson, is that your name?
WILSON, MR: No, it's not Mr Wilson.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, I will ask you - - -
WILSON, MR: It's not my name.
HIS HONOUR: Sir, I will ask you then, if these proceedings don't involve you, have a seat at the back of the court.
WILSON, MR: Do you want a copy of my birth certificate? It has got no 'Mr' on it and it's all in upper and lower case.
HIS HONOUR: If you are not Maxwell Hugh Wilson, please have a - - -
WILSON, MR: I am Maxwell Hugh of the family Wilson. I am not Mr Wilson. You have kept calling me Mr Wilson. I am not a - - -
HIS HONOUR: I have asked you - - -
WILSON, MR: An object. I'm a - - -
HIS HONOUR: - - - is your name Maxwell Hugh Wilson?
WILSON, MR: My name is Maxwell Hugh of the family Wilson.
HIS HONOUR: Have a seat at the back of the court.
PROSECUTOR: If I can have occasion, sir, for an arrest warrant. It appears that Mr Maxwell Hugh Wilson has not attended court here today.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Bail is order for Maxwell Hugh Wilson. There will be a warrant to issue for his arrest.
PROSECUTOR: Thank you, sir.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. We are adjourned (ts 2 - 3).
4 Subsequently, Mr Wilson was arrested for not attending court in breach of his bail, was identified by a photograph as the accused and the trial proceeded.
5 The appeal notice filed by Mr Wilson pursuant to the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) (the CAA) indicates that he seeks leave to appeal against conviction and the decision concerning his arrest for non-attendance. However, the grounds of appeal appeared to only go to the second issue. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. The Magistrate was wrong in law and fact when he tried to force Maxwell Hugh Wilson to accept that his name was a legal fiction being Maxwell Hugh WILSON contrary to his birth certificate therefore committing a fraud and a Tort on Maxwell Hugh Wilson.
2. The Magistrate was wrong in law and fact when he Jailed Maxwell Hugh Wilson for refusing to accept the fraudulent name and committed a further Tort on Maxwell Hugh Wilson.
3. The Magistrate was wrong in law and fact when he refused to allow Maxwell Hugh Wilson to submit papers and Affidavits in relation to the case that was before him, therefore perverting the course of justice, another Tort on Maxwell Hugh Wilson.
4. The Magistrate was wrong in law and fact when he failed to recognise that the Magistrates Court Act was repugnant to the Commonwealth Constitution 1901 and therefore he was required to declare the Act invalid which is another Tort against Maxwell Hugh Wilson.
5. The Magistrate 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 fraud on Maxwell Hugh Wilson.
6 Section 7 of the CAA provides that a person who is an aggrieved by 'a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction' may appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision. However not every decision of a court of summary jurisdiction can be appealed against. The types of decisions against which an appeal can be lodged are listed in s 6 of the CAA. This list is as follows:
(a) a judgment entered under the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 section 128(2) or (3);
(b) a decision ordering a permanent stay of a prosecution;
(c) a decision to convict an accused of a charge, whether after a plea of guilty or after a trial;
(d) a decision to acquit an accused of a charge;
(e) a decision to acquit an accused of a charge on account of unsoundness of mind;
(f) a sentence imposed, or order made, as a result of a conviction or acquittal;
(g) a refusal to make an order that might be made as a result of a conviction or acquittal;
(h) a decision as to costs;
(i) a decision made under the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 section 151.
7 Unless the decision is of the type listed, no appeal lies under the CAA.
8 A decision by a magistrate to issue an arrest warrant for non-appearance does not fall within the description of any of the decisions listed in s 6 and therefore is not a decision which can be appealed against under the provisions of the CAA.
9 Section 9 of the CAA provides that the leave of the Supreme Court is required for each ground of appeal in an appeal. The Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal on a ground of appeal unless it is satisfied that the ground has reasonable prospect of succeeding. Under s 9(3) unless the Supreme Court gives leave to appeal on least one ground of appeal in an appeal, the appeal is to be taken to have been dismissed.
10 Given that the grounds of appeal relate to a decision which is not capable of being the subject of an appeal under the CAA, I refuse leave on each of the grounds of appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
11 I will make a brief comment concerning the procedure followed by the magistrate. Mr Wilson clearly sought to embark upon an obstruction of the proceedings by raising vexatious matters. The failure by Mr Wilson to answer the simple question 'Is your name Maxwell Hugh Wilson?' with a 'yes' is evidence in part of Mr Wilson's intent. There were a number of ways the magistrate could have dealt with the matter. He could have accepted the reply 'My name is Maxwell Hugh. Wilson is my family name' as a sufficient acknowledgement. Alternatively the magistrate could have pursued the course that he did. These are difficult choices. The courts must not allow accused persons and litigants to abuse the process. There is a public interest in the courts maintaining proper dignity and authority. However to authorise the issue of an arrest warrant against someone is a significant step as it deprives that person, at least temporarily, of his or her liberty. In my opinion, in the circumstances of this case it would have been preferable if the learned magistrate had simply accepted Mr Wilson's response as sufficient acknowledgement of his name and presence in court.
0
1