Wilson v Carr [2002] NSWSC 184

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Wilson v Carr [2002] NSWSC 184 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 10088/02 HEARING DATE(S) : Monday 18 February 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 February 2002

PARTIES : John Wilson v The Hon Robert John Carr, MP JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J at 1

COUNSEL : SOLICITORS : In person (Plaintiff) N.A.. Nicholls (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : PLEADING AND PARTICULARS - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE CAUSE OF ACTION - SUMMARY RELIEF LEGISLATION CITED : Courts Legislation Amendment (Civil Juries) Act 2001 Imperial Acts Application Act DECISION : SUMMONS DISMISSED; PROCEEDINGS PERMANENTLY STAYED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Monday 18 February 2002

10088/02 - JOHN WILSON v THE HONOURABLE ROBERT JOHN CARR MP

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: There is before the Court a summons issued by Mr John Wilson. The summons claims a declaration that the defendant, who is identifiable as the Premier of New South Wales: " ... is guilty of treason and treachery in that he was instrumental in removing the Governor of New South Wales from Government House, Sydney." 2 There is also a second declaration that: "The defendant is guilty of treachery in that he was instrumental in advising the Governor of New South Wales grant royal assent to legislation which takes away the common right to trial by jury."

WILSON: Excuse me, are you reading something.

3 HIS HONOUR: I am reading from the summons. It seeks orders that the Premier be punished for such treason and treachery and included in the document are paragraphs which are headed "Statement of Authorities". They make reference to the circumstances that a former Governor of New South Wales did not reside in Government House at Macquarie Street, Sydney in circumstances asserted in the paragraphs and later makes reference to a passage of the Courts Legislation Amendment (Civil Juries) Act 2001. 4 At the commencement of the proceedings, Mr Wilson, who has appeared for himself, has asserted that I have no jurisdiction to determine any matter because any issue must be tried as a matter of right by a jury. He has made reference to ancient statutes, including Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. He has drawn my attention to a statute passed at one time by the Parliament of New South Wales, namely, the Imperial Acts Application Act. 5 Mr Wilson, I should note, has sought to file in court a request for trial by jury in the form prescribed by the Rules and he says that he has the appropriate jury fee available. I record that I am prepared to accept as a matter of fact that he is in possession of and has tendered the appropriate amount for payment of the jury fee. That preparedness has nothing to do with the conclusion which I have reached. 6 On the matter being called on for hearing, Mr Nicholls of counsel appeared for the defendant. He sought leave to file in court a notice of motion returnable instanter, seeking that my powers be exercised alternatively pursuant to pt 13 r 5 or pt 15 r 26, that is to say, either dismissing or permanently staying the proceedings or striking out the proceedings as embarrassing. 7 I should return to the pleadings. There is set out after the statement of authorities a series of paragraphs described as "particulars". Those paragraphs reveal the concept advanced by Mr Wilson that in some constitutional fashion the jury has the power to override the powers of the legislature and, indeed, the exercise of jurisdiction by judges. WILSON: Excuse me, your Honour, you are making a final judgment?