Home  Latest News  Press Release  The Book  Newsletters  Links

Previous Chapter  |   Index  |   Next Chapter



Having met with the times allowed by the Rules for submitting the Application and the Summary of Argument into the High Court of Australia, an interesting piece of legislation was sent to me by two fellows from the Hunter River Valley who have dedicated a great deal of the energies to preserving our inherited rights. Denis Troy and Bob Heath have researched laws which to our legal profession have no understanding, eg: the Australian Constitution, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, etc., etc.. They are not alone because men such as Ray Platt, Bevan O'Regan, Tony Pitt, Joe Bryant, Robert Balgarnie, David Lane and so many more are out there fighting for their country. They will not surrender. I want to thank them for their help and support. Perhaps, one day, this story as well as theirs will be professionally and properly recorded.

Denis sent me some material which included the Victorian Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 which featured the Petition of Right 1627. This was drawn up by a fellow named Lord Coke who was a staunch defender of the rights of the individual. I thought it appropriate to add a reference to it in my Summary of Argument and phoned the Registry to ask permission to add an extra page. The Registrar said okay and below is that Supplementary filing.

Actually, the Law Library at Macquarie University did not have a copy of the Petition of Right and even the State Library only had it on microfilm of a three hundred and fifty year old volume called "English Liberties: Or, The Free-Born SUBJECT'S INHERITANCE".

Viewing this old text was educational not only in what it contained but the way in which it was conveyed. It begins: "THE PROEM. The Constitution of our English Government (the best in the World) is no Arbitrary Tyranny, like the Turkish Grand Seignor's, or the French Kings, whose Wills (or rather Lusts) dispose of the Live sand Fortunes of their unhappy Subjects; Nor an Oligarchy, where the great ones (like Fish in the Ocean) prey upon, and live by devouring the lesser at their pleasure: Nor yet a Democracy or popular State, much less an Anarchy, where all confusedly are hail fellows wellmet. But a most excellent mixt or qualified Monarchy, where the King is vested with large Prerogatives insufficient to support Majesty; and restrain'd only from Power of doing himself and his People harm, (which would be contrary to the very end of all Government, and is properly rather weakness than power) the Nobility adorn'd with Priviledges to be a Screen to Majesty, and a refreshing Shade to their Inferiors, and the Commonalty too, so Guarded in their Persons and Properties by the sense of Law, as renders them Free-men, not Slaves.". Of course, "s" appears frequently as "f".

Nevertheless, it is law in New South Wales and, therefore, Australia. The fact that judges have been getting away with denying the inalienable right of trial by jury can only be described as criminal.

Here is the extra page filed on 11th October, 1998:-


No. S 127 of 1998



Part III (cont.):

28. Section 3 of (1627) 3 Charles I. (Petition of Right) c. I says: "And where also by the statute called, The great charter of the liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, That no free man may be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold or liberties or his free customs, or to be outlawed or exiled, or in manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land." and section 8 of this same Imperial enactment, which is listed in Part I of the Second Schedule of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30, says: "That the awards, doing and proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example:".

Therefore, cases of contempt of court held without the accused allowed or given the right or, as Justice Peter Hidden described it on 16 March 1998, "the benefit of trial by jury" cannot be held as precedents and cannot affect the common law.

Part VI (cont.):

24. Petition of Right 1627, ss. 3 & 8.
25. Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30, Part I of Second Schedule.

Dated the day of , 1998.


Previous Chapter  |   Index  |   Next Chapter                 Top of Page

Home   Latest News  Press Release  The Book   Newsletters  Links

Site researched and written by J. Wilson jhwilson@acay.com.au and is best viewed with a screen resolution of 600 x 800ppi
or better, using Netscape or MSIE version 4.0 browsers or higher. © 2000