Monash City Council recently engaged Russell Kennedy to appear on behalf of council in a conviction and sentence appeal in the County Court.
The appellant was found guilty in the Magistrates’ Court of one breach of stopping where a no stopping sign applies, contrary to rule 167 of the Road Safety Rules 2017 (Vic). Her Honour Magistrate Bott imposed a $300 fine without conviction and ordered the appellant to pay costs in the sum of $97.15.
The appellant lodged her appeal and from the outset showed little to no interest in the actual charge. Rather, she focussed on arguing whether the council had the authority to charge her and whether the County Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
On 8 December 2023 at a Directions Hearing the matter was set down for a 1 hour hearing on 20 May 2024.The matter was not reached and was adjourned to 9 October 2024. The appellant appeared online (due to illness) and the matter was further adjourned for hearing on 25 October 2024.
Between the lodging of the appeal and 25 October 2024, the appellant served voluminous amounts of documents and affidavits – all of which had no bearing on the offence alleged. The majority of the material was incomprehensible and mostly attacked the prosecutor and the validity of the council.
On 9 October 2024 His Honour Judge Palmer dismissed almost all of the material the appellant had filed. His Honour made it clear he was only interested in whether the appellant was stopped in a no stopping area and that any other challenges – such as the validity of the council – needed to be made to a higher court.
His Honour also warned the appellant that if she proceeded with the appeal and lost, he would impose a larger fine than the Magistrate and also award costs.
Hearing
On 25 October 2024 after a group prayer to ‘wash away the wicked’ and a pep talk (about being respectful in the courtroom and not making noise or murmuring) in the foyer outside the courtroom, the appellant and around 40 of her supporters filled the courtroom.
As the council’s witness was being called the appellant attempted to read a document about the court’s jurisdiction and outlined that she was the only ‘live’ woman in the courtroom.
His Honour did not allow the appellant to proceed and the council witness was sworn in and gave his evidence. The appellant did not cross-examine him and continually interrupted His Honour about the court’s jurisdiction, demanding to be heard.
Once the prosecution case had closed the appellant read out a largely incomprehensible statement, covering topics such as:
- the court has no jurisdiction
- the council elections
- the prosecutor had no authority to appear as he had not provided a copyright kangaroo license to practice to the court
- that all the material the appellant filed must be true and accepted as the court or the council did not rebut the affidavits
- that the prosecutor would be reported to:
- the elders, the Waa-Wurrung Tribe;
- the Australian Federal Police;
- the International Police (Interpol);
- the Judge-Advocate General’s Office in Washington DC;
- the Parliament of the Confederation of Switzerland; and
- to the International Criminal Court, The Hague in the Netherlands
- reading a case number from an obscure Northern Territory matter and using Latin sayings (His Honour responded that he speaks English and not Latin)
- that the court has no jurisdiction (to which His Honour responded, why are you here?)
His Honour then said he had enough of this ‘nonsense’ which drew some comments from the audience. One person was warned that if he spoke again he would be asked to leave.
The next person interjected and was asked to leave although he refused to immediately do so. His Honour stood down while 12-15 security officers/ PSO’s entered the courtroom. After some 15 minutes or so the man eventually left the courtroom on his own accord after giving the appellant a massive hug.
Decision
Once the man left, His Honour came back onto the bench and immediately found the charge proven and commenced reading his sentence while there was a chorus of heckling and comments from the audience.
The charge was found proven and without conviction fined the appellant $550.00 and ordered legal costs on an indemnity basis in the sum of $7,517.15.
The legal costs were inclusive of normal preparation, four appearances in court, reading voluminous material filed by the appellant and drafting submissions to respond to some of the potential jurisdictional and validity of the council submissions.