IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Monday, 4 February. 2001
20137/00 - John WILSON v The State of New South Wales
1.HIS HONOUR; The plaintiff has brought proceedings in this Court alleging unlawful imprisonment on two separate occasions. The first of those
occasions is the period from 26 to 28 October 1997. During that period he was in custody, having been arrested on charges under section 326 of the Crimes Act, but after those two days he was released on bail. The later period,
from November 1999 to February 2000, arises from his imprisonment by Wood CJ at CL after he had been found guilty of contempt of this Court. Wood CJ at CL had imposed a longer term of imprisonment but it was reduced on appeal.
2.The only basis upon which the plaintiff contends that imprisonment was unlawful is that he was not granted what, he says, was his right to trial by jury.
3.As I said, the first period of two days related to a
period in custody prior to release on bail upon certain charges which, in fact, were not subsequently proceeded with, Accordingly, no problem arises as to the mode of trial of those charges.
4.The question whether the
charge of contempt of court ought to be tried by jury was agitated by the plaintiff at length from the late 1990's, prior to his ultimately being found guilty in a summary trial before Wood CJ at CL. That issue was resolved
unfavourably to him at first instance, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, and in his application for special leave to the High Court. Accordingly, it is apparent that there is no basis upon which -
WILSON: You have no right to make a decision.
HIS HONOUR: Please, I am giving my judgment.
WILSON: It is wrong, you have no right to give judgment you are not the court.
5.HIS HONOUR: -- upon which the
period of imprisonment referred to in the statement of claim could be said to be unlawful or to have been imposed unlawfully.
6.Before me also is a notice of motion by Mr Wilson in which he asserts that no judge or
master of this Court has any right to deal with any matter arising in these proceedings, including this very motion, because all those matters ought to be tried by jury. The question whether a notice of motion in this Court
should be tried by jury was previously agitated by Mr Wilson before Sully J who ruled adversely to him on 21 December. I respectfully agree with his Honour's conclusion and see no reason to reconsider it --
WILSON: Because you are corrupt too.
7.HIS HONOUR: As Sully J observed in the course of that judgment, any right minded member of this community is well aware of the value of trial by jury but we must recognise that that
mode of trial is governed by statute law in New South Wales and, clearly, is not an available mode of trial for any proceedings the subject of the motion now before me.
8.I also have before me a notice of motion by the
defendant, the State of New South Wales, that the statement of claim be summarily dismissed. For the reasons I have given the defendant is clearly entitled to that relief.
9.Put shortly then, I am of the view that the
notice of motion which asserts any issue raised by Mr Wilson in this Court ought to be tried by jury is without substance and must be dismissed.
10.Similarly, for the reasons I have given, the principal proceedings
instituted by the statement of claim have no prospect of success and also ought to be summarily dismissed.
NICHOLLS: I seek costs.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, I have found against you. Do you wish to be heard on costs,
the State would be entitled to?
WILSON: I will continue to fight for truth, justice and freedom and I will appeal against your wrong, evil judgment.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you Mr Wilson. That being so --
WILSON: How can you sleep at night?
HIS HONOUR: - the plaintiff must pay the costs of both notices of motion.
I certify that this and the 2 preceding
pages are a true copy of the judgment
summing-up sentence herein of the
Honourable Justice Peter Hidden.
Dated 25/2/02 Associate xxxxxxx