THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2001
20714/00 - JOHN WILSON V ST GEORGE BANK LIMITED & ANOR
Applicant in person
Mr S Reuben for First Defendant
Ms J Mahoney for Second Defendant
- - -
WILSON: I have a
letter from the firm called David Landa Stewart saying they will not be representing the bank in the matter, and I was wondering where does Mr Reuben come from?
REUBEN: From the bank, I am instructed.
HIS HONOUR: The bank might have changed their mind, Mr Wilson.
WILSON: So therefore this letter is worthless.
HIS HONOUR: I am in no position to make that judgment. What is it that you want in terms
of orders today?
WILSON: Simply sent to the list judge so that this matter, the whole or any part of it can be tried and assessed by a jury, because I am not giving my consent for it to be otherwise. It's
in accordance with the Supreme Court Procedures Act 1900 s 3 which says (reads) "In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in question may be tried, or the amount of
damages or compensation may be assessed by a Judge without a jury." (THIS PASSAGE WAS LEFT OUT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT'S TRANSCRIPT)
HIS HONOUR: You told me what you want, I didn't ask for reasons at the moment.
WILSON: I want it sent from this court to the court where the list judge is to schedule this matter to be tried by a jury.
HIS HONOUR: I know what you want, let me hear what the others want.
REUBEN: In relation to the proceedings themselves brought by Mr Wilson on the statement of claim, no relief is sought against the bank, so we
are not entirely certain as to our continued involvement in these proceedings and whether we should at this stage simply be submitting --
HIS HONOUR: I am not going to advise you what you ought to be doing.
REUBEN: We haven't taken that course, but no relief is sought against the bank.
HIS HONOUR: Are you seeking any orders today?
REUBEN: Not in relation to the statement of claim.
HIS HONOUR: In any respect at all?
REUBEN: I will be seeking in relation to - there is in fact a notice of motion by Mr Wilson relating to a stay of a writ of possession issued under authority of Justice
Simpson by her judgment. That writ, on the evidence in the proceedings
HIS HONOUR: Can I go back to my question, for the third time, what orders are you seeking today?
REUBEN: We seek that that motion be dismissed.
HIS HONOUR: The date of that motion?
REUBEN: I believe it was filed 29 December.
HIS HONOUR: There was one filed on that day. It
seeks one order and that is a stay of the order and it goes on for about four lines.
REUBEN: That is correct.
HIS HONOUR: I understand what you want. Ms Mahoney, what do you want?
MAHONEY: We seek orders that this notice of motion be stood over for a period of time to allow ourselves to put on a notice of motion.
HIS HONOUR: Is the notice of motion that you want stood over that filed on 29 December also?
HIS HONOUR: How long do you want it stood over for?
MAHONEY: 28 days.
HIS HONOUR: Why?
MAHONEY: We want to put on our own notice of motion for the claim against the State of New South Wales dismissed.
HIS HONOUR: The claim in the statement of claim?
HIS HONOUR: Now I understand where you are all coming from
WILSON: I don't understand about these filings of notices of motion.
HIS HONOUR: Before we come to those, you
raised a question earlier when I was calling through the list about my continuing to have anything to do with the matter. Is that a topic you are pursuing or not?
WILSON: I appeared before you on 28 December
and again on 29 December simply asking for an earlier date than 11 January to hear my notice of motion and you were antagonistic towards me even on that date.
HIS HONOUR: I will go back to my question. Are you
seeking that I disqualify myself from having anything further to do with the matter or not?
WILSON: Yes, you and any other judge or judicial officer.
HIS HONOUR: What is the basis of your application that I
disqualify myself from having anything further to do with the matter?
WILSON: You are employed by the second defendant. I would also like to ask you the question are you a past or present relative, friend,
associate or colleague of the following judicial officers: James Wood, David Hunt, Terence Greenwood, John Hamilton, Matthew Clarke, Alan Abadee, Michael Kirby, John Toohey, Daryl Dawson, Brian Murray, Virginia Bell,
Carolyn Simpson, David Levine, Peter Hidden, Craig Norman, Kenneth Handley, Paul Stein, lan Callinan, Mary Gaudron, John Dunford, Timothy Studdert, Graham Barr, Megan Latham, Brian Sully, Rex Smart, Geoff Haggett, Steve Jupp,
Murray Gleeson, William Fisher, Mahla Pearlman, Reginald Blanch, Michael Campbell, lan Pike, Bryan Beaumont, Roderick Meagher, Dyson Heydon, Charles Sheller. All those judges are involved in this issue.
HIS HONOUR: I am a member of the court, I am a friend of some of those persons.
WILSON: With respect, I have no particular antagonism towards you, just that my experience in these courts is that justice has
been frustrated when I first came to these courts back in 1996. I would like to bring your attention to an affidavit I actually filed in this case, sworn on 20 February.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, does this affidavit
have something to do with your application to have me disqualify myself?
WILSON: Yes, it is to do with the principles and the application and the administration of justice.
HIS HONOUR: What is the date of the affidavit?
WILSON: It is dated 20 February. It begins "I John Wilson
HIS HONOUR: Has it been filed?
HIS HONOUR: IN these proceedings?
HIS HONOUR: 35 paragraphs?
WILSON: Yes, it begins "1. I am the deponent. 2. A court is a place where --"
HIS HONOUR: I
have a copy of that affidavit, thank you. You seek to rely on that affidavit in support of this application that I disqualify myself?
HIS HONOUR: Is there any other material besides that affidavit that
you want to rely on in support of this affidavit?
WILSON: I refer to the transcripts here in the Supreme Court of 28 and 29 December, in which you say my understanding of the law is that neither a judge or the state is
liable in court for anything which a judge does. I believe that shows that you have no understanding of the law.
HIS HONOUR: Is there any other material that you rely on in support of - I withdraw that. Is
there any other evidentiary material on which you rely on in support of this application?
WILSON: I have already filed another affidavit which you have read on 29 December which I have brought up the issue of a case in
HIS HONOUR: Do you want to rely on that affidavit too?
WILSON: Yes, you have read that and you ignored that even though it was a landmark case insofar as it really smashed the banks in their fraud--
HONOUR: Please Mr Wilson, I will give you a chance to advance any arguments that you want to in due course, but now is not the time for that. Is there any other evidentiary material you rely on?
refer to the Supreme Court Procedures Act, and I can go into that later. I just ask you to disqualify yourself and have the matter set --
HIS HONOUR: Is there any other evidentiary material on which you rely on
this application that I disqualify myself. That's a simple question. If there is no other evidentiary material, that's all right. I will read what you have referred me to and then give you a chance to make
your submissions. It is obvious this matter is going to take more than it should for a short matter. I think what I am disposed to do is interrupt it and deal with the other short matters and then come back to it.
WILSON: That requires that you make a judgement on your own jurisdiction. You do not have jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: I will stand it down in the list and deal with any other short matters, if there are any.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, I have read all of the material which you have referred me to, skim read it, with the exception of the transcript of 29 December. You said there was one but I cannot -find
one in the court file. There is one of 28 December. Do you have a copy of one of 29 December?
WILSON: 29th, yes (handed).
HIS HONOUR: I will have a copy taken of this.
WILSON: That was when I filed the affidavit containing the Jerome Daly case of the bank fraud.
HIS HONOUR: Have the other parties seen these affidavits?
REUBEN: I have seen the affidavit of 20 February
2001, two affidavits of that date. I think only one is relied upon.
HIS HONOUR: I have only seen one. It may be that I have seen the wrong one. Are there two by you?
WILSON: I have filed
affidavits with the statement of claim, 28 December, then I filed another affidavit on 29th.
HIS HONOUR: This morning you said you were relying on two affidavits.
WILSON: You asked me about reading the
affidavits. I am going through to check the ones I filed. The first one was on 28 December, second was on 29 December, third was on 11 January, fourth was on 16 January, next was on 16 January, and then there was
another filed on 20 February. That annexed to it the trial of William Penn, William Mead. There was another filed on 20 February which went through what the function of the court was. That's the actual list of
HIS HONOUR: You said this morning you were relying on the affidavit of 20 February. Which one of the 20 February affidavits are you relying on in this application that I disqualify myself?
WILSON: To deal with the function of the court, the administration of justice, that was filed on 20 February and begins, "I am the deponent...".
HIS HONOUR: I have read that one.
WILSON: That's the one I am relying upon for the court to do what it should do which is appoint a jury.
HIS HONOUR: I am sorry, the current application is that I disqualify myself. Until I resolve, after
that is resolved I will embark upon the question of whether I can make an order in relation to the jury. The first application is that I disqualify myself. This morning you said you were relying on materialowhich you
described. You then referred to only one affidavit of 20 February and that was the one commencing, "1. I am the deponent. 2. The court is a place where justice is administered." Is that the
only affidavit of 20 February that you are relying upon in support of your application that I disqualify myself?
WILSON: The only question I have is whether you know the judicial officers I have read out.
HONOUR: I am sorry, I do really need an answer to my question, is the only one of the two affidavits of 20 February that you rely .on in support of the disqualification application the one, paragraph 2 of which says,
"The court is a place where justice is administered". I take it the other representatives then have seen the material relied upon in this application. What do you want to say in support of it?
WILSON: I think the affidavit explaining the function of the court is fairly comprehensive. I would just like to add on April 14 the United Nations on civil rights, Article 14 says, "All persons shall be
HIS HONOUR: Is that all you want to say in support of the application that I disqualify myself?
WILSON: On the first part yes, on the second part that you send this to the list judge.
HIS HONOUR: That's a different application.
FOR HIS HONOUR'S JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson?
WILSON: I wish to appeal against that judgment by taking that matter to the
Court of Appeal. You have no jurisdiction in this case.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson --
WILSON: The issue of consent is very pertinent. I will be taking this to the Court of Appeal.
HIS HONOUR: You must
take your own course. At the moment the matter is before me. You have asked me to send it to the list judge. Do I understand you no longer wish to pursue that application before me?
WILSON: No, because
you have ruled that a judge can rule in this case; you cannot. Simple common sense, common decency, common law --
HIS HONOUR: Let's be clear about it, I don't propose to have canvassed the decision I
have made. Do you or do you not wish to pursue your application that I send this matter, that is your notice of motion and the proceedings in totality, to the list judge?
WILSON: For trial by jury, you have already
said that a judge can judge this matter. I have interpreted that as being that you have no intention of sending it to a judge and jury.
HIS HONOUR: Are you seeking an order from me that I send it to a list judge or not?
WILSON: No, I wish to take this to the Court of Appeal.
HIS HONOUR: You are at liberty to do so. The record of the
decision I have made will be available in about ten minutes.
WILSON: Thank you.
HIS HONOUR: Do you have any other application you wish me to make?
WILSON-: No, because you can not decide any part of this case, that is clear.
HIS HONOUR: I have heard you, the answer is no.
WILSON: Well you are wrong.
HIS HONOUR: I will hear from the other parties.
WILSON: Regarding what, I have already said I am going to appeal against your wrongful judgment, your wrongful and malicious judgment.
HIS HONOUR: Just
be seated Mr Wilson. Mr Reuben, you seek that the notice of motion be dismisses. Ms Mahoney seeks it be adjourned. Logically I think I should deal with her application first, or do you want me to deal with both
REUBEN: I think it would be preferable to deal with them together.
HIS HONOUR: Are you content with that course?
MAHONEY: Yes your Honour.
WILSON: Your Honour, I have patients this afternoon at 2 o'clock.
HIS HONOUR: Would you resume your seat. Is there any evidentiary material you want to place before me?
REUBEN: I wish to read some
paragraphs of Mr Wilson's affidavit, first being the affidavit of 28 September 2000, paragraph 2 of that affidavit, down to the words "30 November 1999".
HIS HONOUR: The eleven paragraph affidavit?
REUBEN: Yes. I read from the words, "On the evening of Wednesday 27 September 2000...", paragraph 2, and I then read paragraph 3. That's all I read.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, do you have any objection to that paragraph?
WILSON: I have objections to you dealing with any parts of the case. This is a repeat of the Carolyn Simpson issue. I put it to her that
she had no jurisdiction, you have no jurisdiction. Your action is unlawful and malicious. Malicious means it is premeditated and designed to do evil. I would have thought by that affidavit you would have read what your
oath means. I put the Holy Bible to you on the counter. You totally ignored the whole issue. You are what, they describe in the Bill of Rights as an evil judge. You have assumed the power of dispensing our
laws and our rights.
Thank you, I am leaving, you have no jurisdiction, none. I bow to the Crown, but not to the judge.
MR WILSON LEAVES COURTROOM
HIS HONOUR: The transcript might note Mr Wilson has left the
court. I note those paragraphs of the affidavit that you have read and the annexure.
REUBEN: There is a further affidavit of Mr Wilson sworn 15 January 2001, an affidavit of 19 paragraphs.
HIS HONOUR: I have read that.
REUBEN: I read paragraphs 2 and 3 of that affidavit. That's the evidence I rely on.
HIS HONOUR: Any other evidentiary material?
HIS HONOUR: Ms Mahoney?
MAHONEY: We rely upon our notice of motion. Basically our application is that the proceedings be dismissed and struck out. The basis of my application this morning was as for cost
saving, that they be dismissed.
HIS HONOUR: It is not immediately obvious to me, seeing everyone is here, that there is a great deal of advantage in adjourning this matter, in not dealing with the notice of motion
MAHONEY: I agree.
HIS HONOUR: You don't want to say anything in opposition to Mr Reuben's application?
HIS HONOUR: Mr Reuben, what was Justice Simpson's order?
REUBEN: It has been taken out, to issue and execute.
HIS HONOUR: The notice of motion is a set of her Honour's order. It may be an idea for me to see what the order was.
REUBEN: I have a copy of
the judgment. I think the order was that leave be granted to issue a writ of possession, but if I could hand to you the judgment of Justice Simpson dated 30 November 1999.
HIS HONOUR: What proceedings?
REUBEN: They are in different proceedings, 11203/99.
HIS HONOUR: I have sent for the file.
REUBEN: Effectively I make three points, that your Honour has before you in the evidence notice to vacate which
relates to a writ of possession in proceedings 11203/99, the file your Honour has now sent for. There is evidence before your Honour that the writ was in fact executed and that in fact Mr Wilson was put out of
possession. That is the case, and that having been the case, there .is nothing for this court to act upon.
The second submission is where there is no basis for interfering, such as with an order of the court such as an
order for a stay of the writ,, where the writ has already been spent. there would be no basis upon which the court would interfere with the order or another judge and the appropriate procedure would have been, for example, for
Mr Wilson to appeal and see a stay commensurate with some form of appeal.
HIS HONOUR: It is common for another court to stay an order of another court.
REUBEN: Yes. The first point is there is nothing to do
in this case. The second point is it is a clearly inappropriate proceeding. I am merely remarking in passing that the motion has in fact been brought under a new proceeding number, which is also an inappropriate
HIS HONOUR: What do you want to say Ms Mahoney?
MAHONEY: I don't wish to say anything, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Reuben, that file has appeared. Anything further you want to say?
REUBEN: No. Perhaps I should tender the orders.
HIS HONOUR: There is no need.
FOR HIS HONOUR'S JUDGEMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HOWE
MONDAY 2 APRIL 2001
020653/00 - JOHN WILSON v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Plaintiff appeared unrepresented
Miss Marney for the Defendant
- - -
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Mr Wilson in person?
PLAINTIFF: Yes sir, Registrar.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Thank you, sir.
DEFENDANT: Marney for the state of New South Wales.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: All right, the application by the defendant
to dismiss or stay for want of prosecution, is that right?
PLAINTIFF: Registrar, there can be no hearing of any part of this case on action against the Crown because I have not given my consent for the Court to be
without a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Uh-huh.
PLAINTIFF: So I ask that you send this straight to the list judge to schedule it for trial by jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Thank you, sir. Miss
Marney, you're relying on your affidavits of 5/3 and 13/2, is that correct?
MARNEY: The only affidavit I would be relying upon is the one of 5/3/2001 and also the one of Mr Wilson sworn 30/11/2000. I
actually have an amended notice of motion to hand up. It's been provided to Mr Wilson. It asks for the same orders, it's just been pleaded so as to meet the rules.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: You're relying on what, the defendant's affidavit of 7/2?
MARNEY: Of 30/11.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: 30/11, right. Mr Wilson, do you rely on any affidavits or not?
PLAINTIFF: Yes, all my affidavits I rely upon, in particular the one filed on 7 February which I'd like to go through now. It starts off by saying "The Court is a place where justice is
administered. Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. Justice is a moral ideal which the law seeks to uphold. The law which destroys rights or protects wrongs is unjust and has no place in this
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Thank you, sir.
PLAINTIFF: There's a lot more to it than that, Mr Registrar. It's to do with the jurisdiction of this Court.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Yes.
PLAINTIFF: This Court has no jurisdiction to hear any part of my action against the Crown. If you should proceed with the hearing of any part of my action or this case then you
will be unlawful and malicious.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Tank you, sir. Miss Marney, how long do you think your application will take?
MARNEY: No more than 20 minutes.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: 20 minutes?
MARNEY: Yes. It's very short.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: How long do you think you'll take, Mr Wilson?
PLAINTIFF: To do what?
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: To oppose Miss Marney's application.
PLAINTIFF: I have no intention of opposing it unless I have a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Right.
PLAINTIFF: My experiences in these courts have been that judges dismiss our laws and our rights.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Thank you. Miss Marney?
PLAINTIFF: I'm already in these courts for two
other actions, one for unlawful imprisonment, done without a jury, another one of unlawful eviction, done without a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Yes.
PLAINTIFF: I'm not prepared to accept anything from a judge without a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Yes.
PLAINTIFF: Have you read the affidavit I filed on 7 February?
REGISTRAR: Sir, unfortunately I think you misunderstand my functions. I'm here as a case manager, I'm not here to decide any issues. I am merely getting a case ready for hearing. Miss Marney tells me
that this application will take 30 minutes. She is relying on her affidavit of 5 March and your affidavit of 30 November last and as I understand it you want to also rely on your affidavits of 7/2 and 14/12.
PLAINTIFF: All the affidavits I have filed.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Good, all right.
PLAINTIFF: I present all this as evidence.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Right, and I take it you'll be appearing on the application of Miss Marney's?
PLAINTIFF: I'll be appearing for myself, yes.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Good. Miss Marney, who will be appearing for you?
MARNEY: I'll be appearing.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: All right.
PLAINTIFF: As the manager of this case-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Yes?
PLAINTIFF: -it is your duty to send it to the duty judge or the list judge for the scheduling of a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Thank you, sir. What I'm going to
do is I'm going to refer you to Master Harrison who sits in the next court room, 7 Gulf, at 10 o'clock and she can deal with the application. The matter is referred. Thank you.
REFERRED TO MASTER HARRISON
MARNEY: Registrar, Master Harrison referred it back to obtain a date for special fixture after Easter.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: After Easter?
PLAINTIFF: She was quite agitated.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: I bet she was. Easter finishes on Easter Monday, the 16th. I've got Thursday the 19th.
MARNEY: That's suitable.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: That suitable, Mr Wilson?
PLAINTIFF: No, I'm in the District Court that day.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: In the District Court. All right. Friday the 20th?
MARNEY: That's suitable.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Friday the 20th, all right. Do you still think it's going to be 30 minutes, or should I mark it 30 minutes to one day?
PLAINTIFF: It'll have to be with a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: All right, well that's an application you can make before the Master on the day.
PLAINTIFF: I don't have to make an,application. It's in the law.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Well, just-
PLAINTIFF: The law says there must consent of both parties.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Mr
Wilson, thank you, I'm merely just setting it down for hearing. On that day you can ask the Master to convene a jury.
PLAINTIFF: You said that I have to make an application.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Yes.
PLAINTIFF: I don't have to make an application at all.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Make the application on the-
PLAINTIFF: It's in the law.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: All right. Take a seat, Mr Wilson.
PLAINTIFF: 19 April?
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: No, Friday the 20th.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: You both agreed, is that correct?
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: So 20653/00, Wilson v New South Wales, strike out statement of claim-
PLAINTIFF: With a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Half hour to one day.
PLAINTIFF: With a' jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: For the applicant there'll be Marney and for the respondent Mr Wilson himself. If you'd
just like to sign this document here saying that all the evidence is on.
PLAINTIFF: What time of the day will it be?
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: It will be ten o'clock.
PLAINTIFF: Ten o'clock.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Ten o'clock and it will either be before Master Harrison next door - that's her special fixture - or it'll be in front of Master Malpass over in
court 1C at 10am and it'll be his special fixture.
PLAINTIFF: Is there a jury box in that room
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: That is an application you'll have to make to the Master on the day, sir.
PLAINTIFF: I don't have to, it's in the law. If you break the law-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: I'm not breaking anything, sir. I'm merely specially fixing it for Friday the 20th.
PLAINTIFF: So what am I doing here?
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: You're signing saying that all the affidavit evidence is on.
PLAINTIFF: But then I'm acknowledging that they can go ahead with the hearing.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Yes.
PLAINTIFF: They can't without a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Sir-
PLAINTIFF: I'm not acknowledging that they can go ahead without a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Thank you, sir. The matter's specially fixed for 10am Friday 20 April.
PLAINTIFF: I refuse to accept without a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Good.
PLAINTIFF: I will not sign as being a respondent in an action--
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Well would you hand the document
back to my clerk? Do you want a copy of your unsigned document, or not?
PLAINTIFF: I refuse to accept any action of the Court without a jury.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Thank you. Give Miss Marney one.
MARNEY: Thank you.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: Hand me that one and I'll note on it that Mr Wilson refuses to sign. And indeed tore it up in the court. Will you hand me that one, thanks?
PLAINTIFF: There's a tape put out by the Attorney General. The last sentence on that tape says "no juries no justice", by the Attorney General. It's made for the purpose of informing jurors.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: I will have it noted for the record that I have written on the special fixture sheet a note that Mr Wilson refused to sign his copy and when handed his copy he tore same up. Thank you, the
matter's specially fixed 10am 20 April.
ADJOURNED TO HEARING FRIDAY 20 APRIL 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
FRIDAY 4 MAY 2001
020714/00 - JOHN WILSON v ST GEORGE BANK LIMITED & 1 ORS
020653/00 - JOHN WILSON v STATE OF NSW
Plaintiff appeared in person
Ms Marnie for the State of New South Wales
Ms Booth for the St George Bank
Mr Allen plaintiff in another matter denied trial by jury
- - -
His HonourMatter number 45
Ms MamieFor the State of New South Wales
His HonourWhat about the St George Bank?
His HonourJust dealing with your matter first, is that matter ready?
PlaintiffYes it is ready for trial by jury
His HonourUm, what is the nature of the matter? You have requisitioned for a jury?
Ms MamieNotice of motion to strike
His HonourNotice of motion to strike, and the matter
Plaintiff A notice of motion must be heard by jury. The Act of 1899 which is the Common Law Procedures Act section 259 the Court or a judge may amend any notice of motion
His Honour Mr Wilson, we have been through this before.
PlaintiffYes, and you are wrong, if you deny a trial by jury you are committing an offence under section 43 of the Federal Acts Application Act which is
punishable by five years imprisonment. You cannot deny me my rights for a trial by jury.
His Honour I take it that you Mr Wilson... and you have your rights - and, urrh
PlaintiffAnd you cannot deny them. This is a Court
His HonourHow long is the matter going to last?
PlaintiffIt will last two days
His HonourTwo days
Ms MarnieIt will take a day if that.....
His HonourAll right, what about..., we're dealing with the St George matter at the moment
Ms Booth Your Honour it is a notice of motion action by the State of New South Wales with the St
Ms Marnie:Matter, 45 on the list, is a matter in which the State of New South Wales has filed a notice of motion. We would estimate no more than a day and we would estimate it would go for that extent of
time because I would assume that submissions would want to be made as to other judge can hear the applications by the Plaintiff.
His HonourAll right, so what about the
PlaintiffYour Honour, also...
His Honour11th of July?
PlaintiffThe Common Law Procedures Act also in section 265 "
His HonourMr Wilson...
Plaintiff:Upon the hearing of any notice of motion the Court will judge
His HonourThis is a call-up. I'm not hearing the matter.
PlaintiffYou are setting it down for trial by jury
His HonourI am setting it down for trial.
PlaintiffFor a trial by jury. It cannot be anything else. Those are proceedings by the Crown.
His HonourAll right, I am prepared to give you a date now.
Ms Marnie11 th of July is unsuitable as I have an arbitration on that date.
His HonourWhat about the 19th of July?
PlaintiffFor trial by jury. It cannot be anything else.
His Honour Well, you can make your application on that day. I am sure you will.
Plaintiff This whole matter is a bank fraud and judicial corruption. It cannot be heard by anything but a jury.
Honour: All right, in matter number 45 which is titled John Wilson v St George Bank and the State of New South Wales, I will set down for the 19th of July, estimate one day...one day. Right, if we could pass to matter number 50.
PlaintiffWe must determine that it will be trial by jury.
His HonourI have dealt with that one.
PlaintiffNo you haven't. You are denying trial by jury.
His Honour1 haven't said anything about jury Mr Wilson.
PlaintiffWill it be a trial by jury
His HonourI think you will find there won't be a jury. You can make your application on the day.
PlaintiffYou have already denied Mr Tony Allen a trial by jury. You have no right to do that. -
His HonourThat's another...
PlaintiffThis is a Court and a Court administers justice.
His HonourMr Wilson, as you can see, I am a busy ..........
Plaintiff And they should hear it too, they should know what they are entitled to. They are entitled to trial by jury. You do not have
the right to refuse
Ms Marnie ........................on the trial by jury
Plaintiff I would also like to mention Section 3 of the Supreme Court Procedures Act 1900, which
says "In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in question may be tried, or the amount of any damages or compensation may be assessed by a Judge without a jury".
I do not give my consent any other way.
His HonourAll right, now matter number 50.
PlaintiffYou're ignoring me aren't you.
His HonourThe 19th of July
PlaintiffSay it again?
His HonourThe 19th of July
PlaintiffThe same day?
His HonourThe 19th
PlaintiffYou are setting both?
His Honour Both of the motions will be set down together. The order they will be dealt
with will be up to the Judge on that day.
PlaintiffIt can't be dealt with the same day. They are two separate cases.
His HonourWell, they may be dealt with one after another. They are two separate cases,
PlaintiffOne day for the one which takes up the 19th, if you say so. That takes up the 19th.
His Honour Yes. If the case needs be they will take up the 20th as well. They can be dealt with one after
another, however long it takes. All right?
PlaintiffNo, its not all right.
MsMarnie..1 have not briefed counsel.......................
His HonourAll right
PlaintiffNo, its not all right.
His Honour1 am afraid I have to move on.
PlaintiffNo, you can't move on until you have finished with this matter,
His HonourI have dealt with this matter.
Plaintiff No, it is too
important, it is of national importance. It is about a person's right to trial by jury. You cannot deny them trial by jury.
His HonourMr Wilson you are disrupting the Court and I'm afraid and I'll have to
PlaintiffI am not disrupting the Court. You are disrupting justice.
PlaintiffYou are obstructing justice. You are denying me the right to trial by jury.
His HonourI haven't said anything about a jury Mr Wilson. You can make your application.
Mr AlienYou denied my case for a trial by jury Your Honour.
His HonourYes, oh
Mr Alien In a public interest matter, involving massive fraud in this country.
His Honour Please, please, I'll have to have you removed
I'm afraid if you don't keep quiet. I have a lot of people here whose time is valuable who are waiting to have their....
Plaintiff Yes and they should know their rights too. They are
entitled to trial by jury. His Honour Matter Number 46.......
Mr Alien So much for journalism in this country (to Anne Lampe - SMH - sitting next to where Mr Alien was standing at the
back of the Court).