Citation: Spajic v Robertson & Ors [2007] NSWSC 553
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 30 May 2007
Judge(s): Michael Grove J
Background
The plaintiff, appearing in person, brought a summons seeking prerogative relief against convictions entered in the Local Court for offences relating to driving an unregistered vehicle. The convictions arose from Court Attendance Notices with a return date of April 2004, at which the plaintiff attended. The matters were then fixed for hearing at Sutherland Local Court on 25 June 2004, a fixture the plaintiff was present to receive.
Before the hearing date, the plaintiff made repeated applications to vacate the fixture on the basis that a person he described as his "common law attorney" (later clarified to be a McKenzie friend, not a qualified lawyer) would be unavailable. Those applications were refused. The plaintiff then simply did not appear on the hearing date, and the Magistrate proceeded to determine the matters in his absence.
When a subsequent annulment application also failed, the plaintiff's stated position became clear: he contended that vehicle registration under State legislation was a monopoly, and that an organisation called "Up Mart" could provide an alternative registration process under common law. He maintained that he was therefore not obliged to comply with the statutory registration requirements.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Magistrate acted lawfully in proceeding to determine the matters in the plaintiff's absence (an ex parte hearing)
- Whether the plaintiff's challenge to the constitutional validity or applicability of vehicle registration legislation had any legal foundation
- Whether the summons for prerogative relief disclosed any merit warranting the court's intervention
Decision
Grove J found the Magistrate's procedure entirely lawful. Section 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 expressly authorises a court to determine proceedings in the absence of an accused person on the basis of the Court Attendance Notice alone, without hearing witnesses, if it is satisfied the Notice is sufficient to establish the offence. The Magistrate was also required by subsection (2) to consider any written material submitted, which he did. The plaintiff's written material, however, went only to the question of vacating the hearing date.
The court then turned to the plaintiff's substantive challenge to the legislation itself. Grove J identified that the plaintiff's real complaint was not procedural at all: he believed he was not bound by State traffic legislation because vehicle registration could alternatively be effected through an organisation called "Up Mart," which the plaintiff described as a social justice movement using "tools of natural law and common law." His Honour found this position entirely without foundation. The constitutional arrangements of New South Wales vest legislative power in the Parliament, and no private group can establish an alternative legal regime outside that framework.
Grove J concluded that the summons was wholly misconceived. At its core, it amounted to a challenge to the existing constitutional order of the State, dressed in selectively quoted and out-of-context legal principles. Continuing the proceedings served no purpose, and the summons was dismissed with costs.
Orders Made
- Summons dismissed with costs
Key Takeaways
- Section 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 expressly permits a Local Court Magistrate to determine proceedings in an accused person's absence, relying on the Court Attendance Notice alone, without calling the prosecutor's witnesses, provided the Notice is sufficient to establish the offence.
- An accused who is aware that adjournment applications have been refused, and who nonetheless fails to appear, has no procedural ground of complaint about the resulting ex parte conviction.
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the legislative power of the New South Wales Parliament extends to requiring vehicle registration, and no private organisation or "common law" arrangement can substitute for compliance with that statutory regime.
- In dismissing the summons, Grove J emphasised that legal principles quoted extensively by a self-represented plaintiff will carry no weight when they are cited out of context and do not address the substance of the applicable law.
- Proceedings that amount, in substance, to a challenge to the constitutional order of the State rather than to any identifiable legal error are liable to be dismissed as futile and misconceived.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 199(1) and s 199(2)
Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment.