Woodward v Court - [2025] NTSC 62

CITATION:Woodward v Court [2025] NTSC 62
PARTIES:WOODWARD, Richard

v
COURT, Michael

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 8 of 2024 (22424728)
DELIVERED:  26 August 2025
HEARING DATES:  16 April 2025
JUDGMENT OF:  Blokland J
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL FROM LOCAL COURT – whether Local Court was in error by
excluding evidence of statements and literature amounting to pseudo law –
whether a number of entities were responsible for trespass and breach of bail
charges rather than complainant – whether error in findings of
guilt – held, no error. Appeal dismissed.
Statutes
Bail Act, ss 34B, 37B
Caravan Parks Act 2012 (NT)
Criminal Code, ss 43AX, 43AY, 43AZ
Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT), s 55(1)
Trespass Act, ss 3, 9, 10, 16
Victims of Crimes Assistance Act, s 61.

R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506; Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650 referred
to.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Self represented
Respondent:  T. McKinney
Solicitors:
Appellant:N/A
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  BLO2510
Number of pages:  43

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Woodward v Court [2025] NTSC 62

No. LCA 8 of 2024 (22424728)
BETWEEN:

RICHARD WOODWARD

Appellant

AND:

MICHAEL COURT

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 26 August 2025)
Background

The appellant was found guilty of the following offences after a hearing in the Local Court at Alice Springs:
Count 1:Trespass after warning to stay off. Offence date: 27 July 2024. Contrary to s 16 of the Trespass Act.
Count 2:Breach of bail. Offence date: 21 September 2024 Contrary to s 34B of the Bail Act.
Count 3:Trespass after warning to stay off. Offence date: 21 September 2024. Contrary to s 16 of the Trespass Act.
The contested hearing proceeded on 12 and 13 November 2024. After finding the appellant guilty, the Local Court Judge convicted him on each count without further penalty, save that three victims levies were imposed, as required by the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act, s 61.
The appellant represented himself at the Local Court hearing and at this appeal.
The grounds of appeal are not expressed clearly, but some arguments were pursued during the course of the appeal hearing which together with the grounds appear to assert error because the Local Court Judge refused to consider or admit certain material into evidence.
The Court has reviewed the evidence and the appellant’s various applications for the admission of the written material.
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
On day one of the hearing, 12/11/2024 my point of law ----- from Judge Earnest Wild who begged all Magistrates, “Try the criminal – not the crime” was blatantly rejected by Judges Ingles.
On day two, 13/11/2024 while giving evidence from the box, I quoted from my legal glossary, due process- the definition ….. it was rejected as irrelevant – and my documents…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodward v Court and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NTSC 62
Decision Date: 26 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Woodward v Court involved the appellant, who had been found guilty of various charges, including breach of bail conditions and trespass, by the Local Court. The appellant sought to appeal the decision, arguing that the Local Court erred in excluding certain evidence, including statements and literature that he described as 'pseudo law'. The case reached the higher court, which was tasked with determining whether the Local Court had indeed made an error in excluding this material.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Local Court was correct in its decision to exclude the evidence presented by the appellant. This evidence included a letter written by the appellant to the High Court of Australia and a purported reply from the Registrar of the High Court. The appellant argued that these documents were relevant to his case, although it was not entirely clear how they related to the charges against him. The court had to assess the relevance of this material and decide whether its exclusion constituted an error of law.

In delivering its judgment, the court closely examined the relevance of the material in question. It noted that the evidence presented did not appear to have any direct or indirect relevance to the charges of breach of bail and trespass. The court held that the appellant’s attempts to introduce what it described as 'pseudo law' were not permissible and did not form a legitimate basis for appeal. The court concluded that the Local Court had not erred in excluding this material, as it did not pertain to the charges at hand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Local Court was upheld. The appellant's contention that the Local Court had made an error in excluding certain evidence was not substantiated, and thus the original conviction and sentence remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

In relation to the breach of the bail condition, the Judge said the calls to the police station made it clear the appellant was intending to go into the Roadhouse. Although there is a defence of reasonable excuse available, she found the appellant’s behaviour was not reasonable and could not amount to a reasonable excuse. Even though the appellant had made attempts to have police attend and they were not available at the time he was expecting to pack up his possessions, when police did arrive they found him with his belongings all set up. Along with the evidence of the admissions that, it could not be found that he was there simply to pack up his belongings. The breach of bail charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt as were the trespass charges.Consideration of arguments on appeal The grounds of appeal are set out above at [6]. It is difficult to know with precision what they mean or whether they set out errors of the kind that can genuinely form the basis of appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant summarised some of the evidence.[40] He pointed out the initial trespass warning and a spelling mistake.[41] He pointed out the note he gave to Donella Guiseppe[42], and emphasized the quote from Mahatma Ghandi. In terms of what error he was submitting the Local Court made, he said the Judge did not accept certain documents.[43] Those documents are a letter from the appellant to the High Court of Australia,[44] and a reply from (according to the appellant) the Registrar of the High Court.[45] The letter dated 22 July 2024 refers to a number of unanswered emails previously said to be sent by the appellant to the High Court. The letter purports to “make my plea-bargain one and only offer for the fraud perpetrated against me by the ACT Magistrates Court over the period June – September 2009)”. It refers to a payout to Brittney Higgins, his own ‘unconstitutional banishment’ for 15 years from the family home and a demand of $1 million from the ACT Magistrates Court. The appellant’s bank details are included in the letter.[46] The letter refers to his seven-day incarceration on charges of trespass and the subsequent dropping of charges, counter charges, collusion and ‘obscurantism’ which he states he will deal with when he comes to Canberra. The letter ends by stating ‘citizens of Australia, will go to the mid-east to secure the signing of the Armistice by the Palestinian and Israeli authorities. The letter is signed by the appellant, with the title ‘Ngunnawal Prosecutor’. A part of a letter in reply, apparently on High Court letterhead dated 22 July 2024[47] refers to correspondence received by the High Court. The author writes ‘It is not clear what case you wish to bring to the High Court’ and recommends the appellant seek legal advice before seeking to commence proceedings. The letter refers the appellant to helpful websites, Forms and Rules of the High Court. The complaint to this Court was that the hearing Judge would not allow the tender of that material. Even taking a broad approach to relevance, understanding the concept of relevance embraces material which is indirectly relevant there is simply no way that this material is relevant to the charges.