THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEPUTY REGISTRAR HAGGETT
MONDAY 19 JUNE 2000
20137/00 - JOHN WILSON v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Plaintiff appeared unrepresented
Ms Gilfoyle for the Defendant
GILFOYLE:I appear for the defendant in the main matter, the applicant
on the motion. I understand Mr Wilson appears in person.
PLAINTIFF:I represent myself. Are you an employee of the defendant?
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:I think that's fairly ovious.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:Obviously. Any person working in the Supreme Court is an employee of the State.
PLAINTIFF:I was told that this matter would be heard by a Master.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:That's correct.
PLAINTIFF:I had his salary written down, but could you tell me what your salary is from the defendant?
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:No, it's none of your concern.
GILFOYLE:I'm sorry, Registrar. It's an application under part 13 rule 5.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:For dismissal?
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:Is there any further evidence to be put on?
PLAINTIFF:I have filed a number of affidavits.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:Four in fact.
PLAINTIFF:No, eight. One of them mentions you by name, and when I get more transcripts through the Attorney General's
Department, in fact they've already phoned to apologise for the delay, I will have the complete case, and then I will decide who to subpoena and there's a very good chance I'll be subpoenaing you. Are you a past or
present relative, friend or associate -
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:I'm not answering any questions. I'm concerned only with getting this matter ready for hearing.
PLAINTIFF:I'm saying -
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:Excuse me.
PLAINTIFF:-- you cannot judge any part of this case.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:I am not judging, I am giving directions to have this matter ready.
PLAINTIFF:You cannot take part in this
case in any way because you are employed by the defendant and this can only be heard by a jury. When I get my final case together I will then be applying for a hearing date before a jury. This cannot be heard by any judicial
officer employed by the defendant.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:Do you wish to put on any further affidavit evidence in respect of this application?
PLAINTIFF:Yes, in fact the phone call from the Attorney General's
Department on Friday said that they apologise for the delay in getting transcripts to me and they estimated another two to three weeks before I get them. I am being delayed by the Local Court Downing Centre transcription
department and in fact I approached my local MP to hurry them along, so I would anticipate that I would be ready for the next stage in about six weeks.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:Do you have any objection to the matter going over for six weeks, Ms Gilfoyle?
GILFOYLE:I would, registrar. I'll get instructions but it seems an unreasonable time.
PLAINTIFF:I would like to
point out to the Court that I am putting all the documents and proceedings onto the Internet. The website it's going under is mentioned in this what I call a press release. The website is
http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au Would you like a copy of the press release? I have several copies here.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:I think somebody has already delivered that up to here.
PLAINTIFF:I have faxed it to the fi
fth floor of the Court.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:I'll certainly put it on the Court file, Mr Wilson.
PLAINTIFF:Do you have a copy?
GILFOYLE:No, I don't. Thank you very much. Registrar, my instructions are to proceed today or to oppose any application for an adjournment.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:I think in view of the line that Mr Wilson is taking it's probably going to be appropriate for this matter to go before a Judge, not a Master. What I propose to do is allow Mr Wilson the opportunity to
put on his further affidavit evidence, being the six weeks that he has requested, list the matter in the Judges application's list on a convenient Monday thereafter and then the Judge can decide what to do with it,
whether to allocate a day, fix it before another Judge or to deal with it on that day. Six weeks from today is 7 August. Would the 7th August be convenient?
PLAINTIFF:That's fine with me.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR:This matter is stood over to the Judges Application List on 7 August 2000.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY 7 AUGUST 2000
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MONDAY 7 AUGUST 2000
020137/00 - JOHN WILSON v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Mr Wilson appeared in person
Ms K M Guilfoyle for the defendant
HIS HONOUR: Matter number 1.
WILSON: I am seeking to set a date for trial by jury, so if you could send me to the list judge.
HIS HONOUR: Is there a consent order in this matter?
GUILFOYLE:No consent order.
HIS HONOUR:There is no consent?
WILSON:There is nothing for you to decide because you are employed by the defendant.
HIS HONOUR:Please set down. You will be dealt with shortly. I am
calling through the list and dealing with consent orders at this stage only.
MATTER STOOD IN THE LIST
HIS HONOUR:Yes, Mr Wilson, what is this about?
WILSON:On 11 April I filed a requisition for trial by
jury. On 27 July I filed a notice to set down for trial by jury and I would like to be referred on to the list judge so that a date can be set for that trial by jury.
GUILFOYLE:Your Honour, if I could interrupt Mr Wilson.
HIS HONOUR:I think Mr Wilson has told me what the nature of the proceedings is.
WILSON:I have not set the overall grounds yet.
HIS HONOUR:Just pardon me a moment.
GUILFOYLE:The matter is here on a
notice of motion filed by the defendant in those proceedings. The State of New South Wales is the applicant on the motion and the motion to have the proceedings brought by Mr Wilson dismissed under part 13 rule 5 of the Supreme
Court rules. Mr Wilson's statement of claim alleges false imprisonment and various other charges against the State of New South Wales.
HIS HONOUR:Now, how long do you think it will take to hear that motion to dispose of it?
GUILFOYLE:My submissions would be about twenty minutes. As to Mr Wilson, I can't estimate.
HIS HONOUR:Mr Wilson, you have notice of that application, do you?
WILSON:It cannot be determined by you because you are employed by the defendant; and also - -
HIS HONOUR:I do intend to hear it, Mr Wilson.
WILSON:You have no right to do that. There is another question I have to ask here. Are you or have you in the past or present a relative, friend or colleague of the following judicial officers:
HIS HONOUR:Is there
any reason why I should not refer this matter to the holding list to be given a date for hearing the application?
GUILFOYLE:I cannot think of any reason, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:I refere this matter to the holding list to be given a date for hearing of the application.
WILSON:It must be before a jury.
HIS HONOUR:That will be the end of it thank you for today.
WILSON:It must be before a jury.
HIS HONOUR:You will receive notice of the date for the hearing.
WILSON:Will that be before a jury or a hearing? Will that be - your Honour, you haven't answered the question - you
are here your Honour, you are here - -
HIS HONOUR:If you do not leave the court I will have you removed.
WILSON:I want the answer to the question.
(Mr Wilson approached by another litigant in person. Discussion ensued.)
WILSON:He can't make any decisions of the matter. He has got no right to do such a thing. I wish to list a formal objection.
HIS HONOUR:You can lodge an appeal if you want to.
WILSON:I do not intend to. I want a trial by jury, which is my right.
HIS HONOUR:You can lodge an appeal from my decision referring the matter to the holding list for a date.
WILSON:Are you denying trial by jury?
HIS HONOUR:I will have to ask you to leave, Mr Wilson. I have got a room full of people.
WILSON:It is a very important question - -
HIS HONOUR:Mr Wilson, will you leave the courtroom immediately.
WILSON:- - for Australia.
HIS HONOUR:Will you leave the courtroom immediately.
(Mr Wilson leave courtroom after collecting personal belongings.)
(Matter referred to holding list to be given a date for hearing of the application.)
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MONDAY 21 AUGUST 2000
20137/00 - JOHN WILSON V STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Mr Wilson appeared in person.
Miss Adams for the defendant.
WLSON: These proceedings are being recorded?
HIS HONOUR: There
is a transcript being taken. This is a notice of motion by the State of New South Wales to strike out or deal in some way -
ADAMS: There is a notice of motion on for seeking summary disposal of this
matter. However, the reason the matter comes before the Court today is that Mr Wilson on 10 August filed a notice of motion seeking expedition, I understand, of a finite hearing. The current status of the matter is a
Statement of Claim was filed by Mr Wilson, we have put on a notice of motion seeking summary disposal on 7 August, that was put in the Holding List, so we are currently awaiting to be called up.
HIS HONOUR:But does this notice of motion have to be dealt with before the final action?
ADAMS:It won't. The matter is not ready for hearing. We haven't put on a defence, or anything.
HIS HONOUR:Mr Wilson, I have
read the affidavit in which you set out the reasons why there is urgency attaching to this. How long do you think the matter will last?
WILSON:The actual case itself should last probably five days.
HIS HONOUR:What about the notice of motion before that case?
WILSON:Any issue can only be determined by a jury, none of it can be determined by a judicial officer, because they are all employed by the State. So,
therefore, whether it's a notice of motion, or the actual trial itself, it must be before a jury. That is the only tribunal which it can be done.
HIS HONOUR:The problem of that is that the rules don't make provision for
a notice of motion to be determined by a jury, and -
WILSON:This is a court of justice and, therefore, I think rights should be done, and otherwise if it's going to be put up, notice of motion, then it becomes a bit of a
farce. We have got to cut through the farce and get down to the substance of the matter, which is my Statement of Claim, and it must and can only be by a jury.
HIS HONOUR:I will have a look at the Statement of Claim.
Just looking at this Statement of Claim Mr Wilson, I think there are difficulties in the way it has been pleaded. I appreciate you are appearing for yourself, but the pleading must ultimately conform to the rules in a sense
that it must identify the factual matters that you rely upon and set out a cause of action upon which you rely, and this is no doubt what is provoking the defendant to seek to have the matter strcu out before it actually gets
to trial. So I think it is important that, perhaps with pro bono assictance provided by the Bar, I don't know.
WILSON:I have got no confidence in the judiciary or the legal profession at all, and so this is where we
come back to the sovereignty of the people, and the right of the people to decide what is justice, public justice, as I, therefore - no matter what the issue, what the question, what procedural devices.
HIS HONOUR:The real problem is that it is only justice for you, it is justice for the defendant too.
WILSON:It's justice for Australia. There are verey very big issues in this case. Extremely big issues.
HONOUR:But what you need to do is set out in proper form, in a way which the defendants can then respond to, what your allegations are. And at the moment, without determining the matter but just glancing at it, it appears that
the Statement of Claim does not do that.
WILSON:But you can't make any judgment.
HIS HONOUR:No,at the moment I am hearing a mention, I am not making a judgment, but perhaps if I can just address some remarks to
I must say, it has always been my view shortcuts are often the longest way home, and consequently in many ways it is desirable that ultimately Mr Wilson does get his case before a jury as he wishes, and the
case is then dealt with. Now I appreciate that you are obliged to deal with the matter in a way which protects your client, but nonetheless I do think that ultimately one is going to inevitably meet problems and appeals and so
on unless the issue is allowed to be confronted in an appropriate way.
ADAMS:Your Honour, if I could just be heard on that aspect. It's not a question of purely of how the Statement of Claim is drafted, Mr Wilson's
allegation is he seeks damages for false imprisonment following a valid conviction. He was validly convicted. There is no doubt of any false imprisonment. So the basis of the application that there is no cause of action is not
purely tied to the fact, that the Statement of Claim has not particularized that fully. It would be my submission that even if it was particularized fully, we would still be seeking summary disposal.
HIS HONOUR:What I
can do Mr Wilson is this: The matter that is the notice of motion, not the whole cause of action, will be set down on 9 November. It will not be before a jury, however, it will be before a judgment of
WILSON:This cannot be.
HIS HONOUR:That is what the rules -
WILSON:No it cannot be.
HIS HONOUR:- require.
WILSON:It cannot be. It must be before a jury. It can not be before a judge, only, because a
judge is employed by the defendant.
HIS HONOUR:I understand you argument, but we are dealing with an ancient system that goes back eight hundred years, and that it was ever thus I am afraid. Now you may have some
difficulty with that, but that is the way -
WILSON:I have no difficulty, I believe in justice and truth, and my experiences have been that using technicalities, justice is denied.
HIS HONOUR:In any event, I am just simply the lsit judge today dealing with a mention, and -
WILSON:You are the list judge are you?
HIS HONOUR:I am.
WILSON:So you can set a date for trial by jury?
HIS HONOUR:I can't set a date for trial until the matter is ready for trial, and there is a motion before the Court for summary disposal which needs to be determined. And in respect of that motion I will make an order that it
be set down for hearing on 9 November. Now I am prepared to allocate another date other than 9 November, if that is inconvenient to you, but otherwise it will be 9 November.
WILSON:Would you appoint pro bono a barrister to help me set out according to the rules as you say?
HIS HONOUR:I can't appoint it, but what I can do is perhaps through my associate make enquires with the Bar Association.
If you were to leave your phone number and address, then I can ask that the bar Association get someone to contact you, and they may be able to assist you in the preparation and presentation of your case. It is a matter for
them, but I have no power except to facilitate it that way. So I will have that enquiry made, but the matter itself will be set down on 9 November.
WILSON:That will be for the?
HIS HONOUR:The notice of motion.
WILSON:Which notice of motion is that?
HIS HONOUR:That is the notice of motion by the defendant, the State of New South Wales, to have your Statement of Claim struck out.
WILSON:What about my notice of motion to expedite the setting of a date by trial by jury?
HIS HONOUR:There has to be an order of things. That if you wish, what I can do, perhaps I should do this at the same time, subject
to hearing from Miss adams, is make that motion for mention on the same day. The sequence has to be, they say you have got no course of action, they want to strike you out.
WILSON:And the judge will strike it out.
HIS HONOUR:If it is not struck out, it is still there and available. Then the next issue arises whether or not it should be set down before a jury.
WILSON:I had this happen to me once before in a case in the St George
bank where Justice Bell decided to hear a notice of motion to strike out before my notice of motion for trial by jury, and she said the notice of motion is upheld, then there is no motion for trial by jury. So that is a
technicality to get around justice.
HIS HONOUR:It's not a technicality, it's a logical progression.
WILSON:To get around justice.
HIS HONOUR:Through issues. But if you have a valid claim, which is not
struck out, for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution, then I believe, and I haven't checked the rules lately, but I believe you have the right as a right you can request a jury. And I am sure you have already put on a
requisition for a jury, so that the matter will then proceed before a jury as you wish. But you first have got to overcome the barrier of the defendant's application to have you struck out on the basis that there is no cause of
WILSON:Judged by a judge who is employed by the defendant.
HIS HONOUR:I am afraid so. We're not employed by the defendant, we're independent officers, but a judge operating within the system, as it's been
established in this country for two hundred years, and in the common law world for eight hundred I am afraid.
WILSON:And it's always been trial by jury.
HIS HONOUR:Well certain aspects are tried by jury. But
anyway, I am not about to debate that, I have got another matter, but if you can provide those particulars I will ensure that the bar Association gets in touch with you.