DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Introduction

1. [1]
   By notice of appeal filed in this court on 30 April 2012 and pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886, Sarah Ann Wales (“the appellant”) appeals against the orders^[1]of an Acting Magistrate, made in the Maroochydore Magistrate’s Court on 2 April 2012.  By those orders she was:

2. [2]
   The grounds of appeal as set out in the notice of appeal are as follows:

“● John Parker dba MAGISTRATE JOHN PARKER entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the Defendant.  Intention to plead guilty to the facts was entered by real party interest Sarah Wales.

● John Parker dba MAGISTRATE JOHN PARKER was heard by witnesses present to call real party interest Sarah Wales a ‘Criminal’ upon commencement of the trial.  See attached further grounds of appeal.

● See attached NOTICE OF DENIAL OF PLEA OF NOT GUILTY served on John Parker dba MAGISTRATE JOHN PARKER 12-4-12 via Maroochydore Court House #512700332010.”

3. [3]
   As far as the attachments are concerned there is an attached document which states:

4. [4]
   The second attachment to the notice of appeal is a document headed “AFFIDAVIT” and dated “April 30, 2012”. The following is then stated:

5. [5]
   That endorsement bears a signature and the document goes on to bear an acknowledgement of the Justice of the Peace (qualified) with reference to a particular registration number that the document was:

‘AFFIRMED TO before me by Sarah Wales, known to me or proven to me to be the real woman signing this affidavit this thirtieth day of April Two Thousand and Twelve.’”

6. [6]
   It can otherwise be noted that the notice of appeal itself is endorsed in handwriting to be signed “by Sarah Wales intervener and dated 30 April 2012 at Maroochydore. The signature appearing on that document appears with the words “All Rights Reserved” underneath.

7. [7]
   In addition there is a further attachment which is headed “notice of denial”. It also contains a reference to

8. [8]
   In part the document proceeds to contend:

9. [9]
   That document is accompanied by what appears to be a certification made by the said “Affiant” which has been witnessed by a named notary public on 11 April 2012.

The Appeal

10. [10]
    I have set out those grounds and the statements made in the attachments to the notice of appeal, in some detail in order to demonstrate the nature and flavour of the assertions which have been made by the appellant in support of her appeal. Similar submissions were made in other documents submitted to this Court by the appellant and treated as part of her written submissions and also in her oral submissions to the court.

11. [11]
    I am conscious that this appeal is to be conducted as a re-hearing upon the evidence given in the Magistrates Court, except where leave is given for new evidence^[2]and that the general duty of this court is to undertake a review of the record of proceedings and to form an independent conclusion as to the orders made.^[3]

12. [12]
    The proceedings in this court and those before the Acting Magistrate have been characterised by the appellant’s submission of documents in which she makes assertions which she contends should have evidentiary effect or some legal conclusory effect (at least in the absence of refutation by someone with first hand knowledge of the matters asserted).^[4]As was explained to her by the Acting Magistrate, she had the opportunity (which she did not accept) to give evidence before him and to thereby tender any relevant document.^[5]

13. [13]
    In this court, the documents submitted with the Notice of Appeal and those other documents which had been served on the legal representatives of the respondent were, by direction, treated as her written submissions.^[6]There was no application made and therefore no leave granted for the introduction of new evidence.

14. [14]
    In the hearing in the Magistrates Court, evidence was given that:

1. (a)
   At approximately 7.50am on 11 December 2011 Senior Constable Weir of the Sunshine Coast Traffic Branch was performing mobile traffic controls along Bli Bli Roadat Nambour;^[7]

2. (b)
   Senior Constable Weir observed the appellant’s vehicle travel towards him in a 60km/h speed zone and upon using an approved mobile radar unit to check the speed of the appellant’s vehicle, a speed of 76km/h was detected and locked in the unit;^[8]

3. (c)
   The appellant was intercepted and required to produce her drivers licence and provide her name.  However she refused and stated that she would not comply until provided with a copy of the law requiring her to do so;^[9]

4. (d)
   The appellant was transported to the Sunshine Coast Traffic Office for police to obtain details as to her identity and they there provided her with a copy of the provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 empowering them to seek her identification details, however the appellant continued to refuse to provide her name and was subsequently arrested;^[10]

5. (e)
   The appellant was transported to the Nambour Police Station and requested to supply a specimen of breath, which she declined to do.  She was then conveyed to the Maroochydore Breath Analysis Section for the purpose of breath analysis.  However she refused to answer questions in relation to the consumption of alcohol and stated that she would only supply a specimen of breath if police entered into a contract to pay her $100,000 cash.^[11]

15. [15]
    Review of the record discloses that the appellant was allowed the opportunity of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and given but declined the opportunity to give or call evidence before the Acting Magistrate and that the hearing proceeded largely in the regular manner of a summary trial in the Magistrates Court of Queensland. However, it is also apparent that the appellant challenged the authority of the Court to deal with her, by reference to contentions similar to those that had been set out above.^[12]She failed to enter pleas to the charges, when called upon to do so and accordingly the Acting Magistrate entered not guilty pleas and proceeded to hear and determine these charges.  Reference to his reasons for decision indicates that the Acting Magistrate gave appropriate consideration to each charge and the evidence relating to each charge, before convicting the appellant and sentencing her.  It can be further noted that he did so in circumstances of considerable difficulty, having regard to the similar type of defiant and challenging behaviours, on the part of the appellant, as experienced by this Court.^[13]

16. [16]
    In evidence given at the trial, Senior Constable Weir confirmed that the appellant was, on Sunday 11 December 2011 arrested in respect of the five charges laid against her.^[14]That is, she was arrested without warrant, a procedure allowed under s 365 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (“PPRA”).

17. [17]
    In accordance with further and commonly occurring procedures^[15]she was granted bail at the Maroochydore Watch-house, on condition that she appear at the Nambour Magistrates Court at 9.30am on 5 January 2012.  The court file is noted that she did so appear, although it is also noted that she failed to identify herself and was unco-operative in respect of entering any plea or in applying for any adjournment.  However the charges were adjourned to 19 January 2012, when the charges were then further adjourned to the Maroochydore Magistrates Court for hearing on 2 April 2010.^[16]

18. [18]
    On 2 April 2010 a summary trial of the charges occurred^[17]and the proceedings were recorded and transcribed.  That hearing proceeded upon the charges set out in the five bench charge sheets which had comprised the court file since 5 January 2012, when those charges first came before the Nambour Magistrates Court.  That process is expressly required by s 42(2) of the Justices Act 1886 and it can be noted that once an arrest without warrant occurs in circumstances like these, an essential requirement under ss 393 and 394 of the PPRA, is that the arrested person must come before a Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law.^[18]

19. [19]
    It can be seen that the appellant professes some legal views and propositions that are, at least, not mainstream and that, at best for her, there is considerable confusion of civil legal concepts into an inappropriate and inapplicable context. That appears to extend to a contention that Sarah Wales somehow appears before courts in a different capacity to the person or the name Sarah Ann Wales.^[19]However it was apparent that it was the appellant,^[20]who appeared in this court and who had appeared in the Magistrates Court and who had been arrested and charged with the abovementioned offences, by a police officer.  Accordingly and in this context, there is no warrant for any division of persona or interest of the appellant.

20. [20]
    Further a review of the record from the Magistrates Court does not indicate any irregularity in the processes adopted in this case and which are adopted regularly on a daily basis in Magistrates Courts throughout Queensland. 

21. [21]
    Underlying most of the grounds of appeal is a contention that she was never properly brought before the Magistrates Court and called upon to plead to the charges.  Such a contention, of course, must be considered by having regard to the law that actually applies to such proceedings in Queensland and which did apply to the appellant.  I therefore reject as untenable, another contention of the appellant, that the statutory laws of Queensland only apply to public servants.

22. [22]
    Accordingly the Acting Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear and determine these charges.

23. [23]
    To the extent that there is a complaint about the process whereby not guilty pleas were entered by the Acting Magistrate, it is sufficient to extract from the transcript what occurred when the appellant was addressed in respect of charge 2:

“BENCH:  I’ll read you – I’ll read you charge 2.  You’re charged that on the 11^th of December at Bli Bli, without reasonable excuse, you contravened a requirement by Senior Constable Rodney James Weir under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act to state your full name and correct name and address.  How do you plead to that?

DEFENDANT:  Your Honour, I’m happy to pay.  I’m happy to plead guilty upon presentation of a bona fide claim.  Have you read the pleading, Your Honour?

BENCH:  Well, I’ll enter that as a plea of not guilty.

DEFENDANT:  Objection.  I’ve conditionally accepted your offer, Your Honour.

BENCH:  Stop object – – – –

DEFENDANT:  I conditionally accept your offer to plead guilty upon, upon presentation of a bona fide claim.  Have you read my pleading, Your Honour?  Have you read the counter-claim?

BENCH:  I’ll read you charge 3.”^[21]

24. [24]
    The entry of not guilty pleas in such circumstances is warranted by s 145 and 148 of the Justices Act 1886 and s 601 of the Criminal Code (Qld).  This is particularly so when regard is had to the wider context that an underlying premise of the appellant’s contention was that she was somehow not amenable to the statutory laws of Queensland and/or had commercially resolved the matter by serving documents on the arresting police officer containing assertions which had not been refuted.^[22]

25. [25]
    Some variation occurred in the wording adopted by the Acting Magistrate in the introductory words used in charging the appellant, in each instance:

1. (a)
   In respect of charge 1, it was “Sarah Ann Wales is charged that…”;

2. (b)
   In respect of charges 2 and 4, it was “You’re charged that…”;

3. (c)
   In respect of charge 3 there were no introductory words; and

4. (d)
   In respect of charge 5, the following occurred:

“BENCH:  Stop.  Stop and listen.  Charge 5, that on the 11^thof December 2011 at Maroochydore, you were guilty of an offence against Section 79(1) of the TORUMin that you upon requisition duly made by Senior Constable Weir, a police officer, failed to provide a prescribed specimen of breath for analysis.  How do you plead to that?”^[23]

26. [26]
    The appellant complains about this and that she was called a “criminal” and “several derogatory names including pig-headed and obnoxious” by the Acting Magistrate. This appears to be part of a complaint that the Acting Magistrate was prejudiced and did not impartially hear and decide this matter.

27. [27]
    On a review of the record of proceedings, no such conclusion is warranted. It is clear that the form adopted to read out charge 5 was intended to and when considered as a whole, did put the matter as a charge or allegation. Further, it is clear that the Acting Magistrate rightly found the appellant’s conduct of the proceedings to be unco-operative, to the point of obstruction and that dealing with this was an obviously frustrating process. In this regard and towards the end of the proceedings, the Acting Magistrate said:

“Ms Wales in all my time in the Courts as prosecutor, as a defence lawyer, and as a Magistrate, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone as rude, as obstructionist and as contemptuous in – words fail me.  You – You bring all these problems upon yourself.

I’ll say it again, the police treated you very well; in fact, they could’ve charged you with driving disqualified because of SPER, and they chose not to, they gave you a break there, I’m sure you don’t recognise that, but they could’ve charged you with driving disqualified.”

The following exchange is then recorded:

“DEFENDANT:  Was I driving, according to the legal definition?  Was the defendant driving?  What is the legal definition of driving?

BENCH:  Be quiet

DEFENDANT:  If it is not engaging in commerce, Your Honour.

BENCH:  Be quiet.”^[24]

28. [28]
    On more than one occasion the Acting Magistrate had to address the appellant in emphatic terms and more than once he found it necessary to warn her of the potential consequences of being in contempt of court.^[25]However, I can find no instance of the Magistrate referring to the appellant as a “criminal” or “obnoxious” but he did as the passage set out above exemplifies, describe her as “obstructionist”.  The Acting Magistrate did also, in giving his decision and after recounting the sequence of events which occurred in the appellant’s dealings with the police officers, say:

“So, by her recalcitrance and by her pig-headedness, she has dug herself a very deep hole.”^[26]

29. [29]
    As pursued in the appeal process in this Court, the appellant’s main aim was to frustrate the process of determining the charges brought against her by espousing and seeking to doggedly maintain inapplicable and/or unrecognisable legal principles. In such circumstances it is understandable (even if, with the benefit of hindsight, some regrettable personalisation occurred) that the Acting Magistrate used some direct and descriptive language in response to this behaviour. However, I can discern nothing to warrant any conclusion that the Acting Magistrate may not have brought an impartial mind to the consideration of this matter.

30. [30]
    The appellant orally contended that there had somehow been some private settlement of the matters before the court.^[27]However, this contention appeared to be largely based upon misconception of civil law principles and an erroneous contention that the service of a document on a party, asserting a position and without a direct response to it, constituted such a settlement.  Moreover no evidence of any such settlement was placed before the Acting Magistrate and the convictions entered by him were warranted upon the evidence placed before him and accordingly his orders in that regard should be confirmed.

Other matters

31. [31]
    It is by no means clear whether the notice of appeal was also lodged in respect of her sentence but no separate issue was raised by the appellant in respect of the sentencing orders of the Acting Magistrate. Moreover, there is no reason for concluding that the orders made were not made in the sound and appropriate exercise of the Acting Magistrates discretion, having regard to the totality of the appellant’s offending.^[28]

32. [32]
    Similarly and despite being given opportunity to do so, the appellant made no specific submissions in response to the application made in the respondent’s outline of submissions for costs, in the event that this appeal is dismissed.

33. [33]
    Such an order may be made pursuant to s 226 of the Justices Act 1886 and in deciding what award of costs is just, pursuant to s 232A, allowance may only be made up to the amount allowed for an item in the Justices Regulation 2004.  In this instance and as the appeal is to be dismissed, the only application is for an amount of $1,800.^[29]The respondent was legally represented in this appeal and there is no reason for doubting that as much as $1,800 has been incurred in that representation.^[30]Accordingly it is appropriate to make the orders sought. 

34. [34]
    At the hearing of the appeal and in the course of dealing with the sealed envelopes (marked “for judge’s eyes only”) which had been filed by the appellant and upon giving directions that those of them, in respect of and which the contents had been served on the Respondent, ^[31]would be opened and considered as part of the appellant’s submissions, I reserved a claim by the appellant for confidentiality or non-publication of those documents until now.  As it is understood, the basis of that claim is the private nature of the documents. 

35. [35]
    Having considered the contents of those envelopes and in the absence of some recognised basis for exclusion, they now form part of the public record of this court.^[32]It is simply not apparent as to how any valid claim for confidentiality or non-publication can be sustained in respect of these documents and accordingly there will be no such order made in respect of them.

36. [36]
    However there are two envelopes^[33]that remain sealed and unopened on the court file and therefore the contents have not become part of the record of the court.  In order to preserve that state of the record, I will direct that those envelopes remain sealed on the court file, in the absence of any other order of a judge. 

Orders

37. [37]
    Therefore this appeal is dismissed and it is ordered that:

1. The orders made against the appellant in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court on 2 April 2012 are confirmed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,800.00, with that amount to be paid to the Registrar of the District Court at Maroochydore on or before 9 January 2013 and then paid over to the respondent.

38. [38]
    It is further directed that the envelopes, being the documents numbered 9 and 12 on the court file, remain sealed and unopened in the absence of any other order by a Judge.