JAIL FOR THE WANT OF A JURY
Date:Tuesday, 9th November, 1999.
Place: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Judge:Chief justice at Common Law Wood.
Prosecutor:Mr. Buddin, SC, for the Prothonotary.
Charge: Contempt of Court.
Sentence:2 years without parole.
By "fast tracking" and overruling statutory practices, ie: not having heard an appeal to the Court of Appeal on the interlocutory matter requisitioning
trial by jury citing domestic and international laws and disregarding the 28 days allowed in which to appeal to the High Court on those questions of law, Chief Justice Wood conducted his "Summary Procedure".
The transcript begins by my saying to the judge, "You are a false judge in a false court established by false law.
This court has no jurisdiction over the people of Australia and I demand my rights under international law, in particular, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.".
The Judgement written by Wood CJ stated, in the respective paragraphs:-
" 7 When the matter came on for hearing this morning the defendant, Mr Wilson, pursued his claim to trial by
jury and objected to the jurisdiction of the court.".
"8. Having heard various objections formulated by him in this regard, it was my decision that the matter should
proceed in a summary fashion without a jury. Evidence was called from various witnesses in the form of affidavits
. None of those deponents was required for cross-examination and none of the evidence was challenged in any form.".
"22.(e) Contempt of the kind here charged is criminal in nature."
"22.(f) Proof of an intention to interfere in the administration of justice is not an ingredient of the charge.".
Continually pointing out the invalidity of the laws establishing the court and, therefore, the lack of jurisdiction of the court plus continually insistence upon a jury, were blithely ignored by Wood CJ.
Even when I made statements such as: "I have been frustrated in the courts for the last three years. I have found
Judges are liars, criminals and traitors. I have no confidence in you or the system as it stands, it must be
dismantled and rebuilt on the principles of justice. We do not have that." and "Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery
." and "Judges are not above the law. If they are corrupt they should be tried and imprisoned.".
CJ Wood proceeded to convict me in this "kangaroo court" with no jury and imposed a sentence pf "2 YEARS
FIXED TERM COMMENCING ON 9/11/99 AND EXPIRING ON 8/11/01" with "The earliest day on which the prisoner may be eligible to be released on parole under this order is: 8/11/01."
AND SO, OFF TO JAIL:
Handcuffed in court and led away by the sheriffs. To the cells in the basement. Strip-searched. Off to the
Silverwater maximum security Remand Centre with murderers, drug dealers, armed robbers, and all.
Two weeks in "maximum" before being classified "C2" and transported to the Silverwater Complex. The comment by the Classification Board was that "We don't get people like you in here.".
I kept out of confrontations, bashings and stabbings. Within a few days a couple of "inmates" had appointed themselves as minders for me - which was greater appreciated.
I told my story of bank fraud and corrupt judges to anyone who would listen and, in return, I learnt a lot about
the "other side" of life. For the most part, while in jail, prisoners have a mutual regard for each other with tattoos,
shaved heads, the "f" word and rolling cigarettes forming a basis of familiarity and possibly kinship.
I worked in the kitchen five mornings every week. To have some sort of employment was essential to ward off the
oppressive boredom. The fact that the rate of pay was 86 cents an hour was immaterial but it did amount to some $30 each week to spend on treats such as biscuits, lollies and (if addicted) tobacco. Methadone
treatment was administered to the majority of prisoners but other forms of health services were very inferior. The officers who one could regard as decent and honest were rare and most were best avoided.
APPEAL AND RELEASE:
With the help of Mr. Phil Weldon, a solicitor and friend of my son, and Mr. Bob Toner, a Senior Counsel and
friend of Phil, an appeal was hear in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on Wednesday 16/2/00 before three judges who were: Meagher JA, Sheller JA and Heydon JA. They reserved their
judgement and refused bail.
At 7 am on the morning of 29/2/00, I was let out of "E" block and on my way to the kitchen for work when an
officer called me back and told me I had to go to court. I said I wasn't interested in going. This was because of
all the handcuffing, transporting and confinement in dungeon-type cells involved. And, beside, I had no confidence in any judge doing anything half-way honourable.
The officers wouldn't take no for an answer and the ritual was set in motion, again. The decision was 2 to 1 to
terminate the sentence with Meagher JA being the one who say "I have read in draft the judgement of Heydon JA. I disagree with it.". All Sheller JA wrote was "I agree with Heydon JA.".
Heydon JA upheld the conviction and denial of trial by jury. However, his orders were: "1. Appeal allowed. 2.
Quash the sentences imposed on 9 November 1999. 3. In lieu thereof sentence the appellant on each count to a fixed term of imprisonment of 3 months and 20 days to commence from 9 November 1999 to be served
concurrently. 4. Order that the appellant be released on the making of these orders.".
Heydon JA's main reason was that "the period which has elapsed since the appellant was sent to gaol is a
sufficient punishment, has sufficiently provided him encouragement towards rehabilitation and sufficiently marked
the community disapproval of the offence........A further period in gaol for the appellant would not appear to operate as a legitimate means of deterring persons who do not suffer from that Disorder....There is no reason to
suppose that continuance of the term will deter the appellant any more than it has already done. To endeavour to do so appears futile.'.
OFF TO THE UNITED NATIONS:
Where to, now? It is painfully obvious that the courts in Australia are beyond remedy of their own choosing.
Therefore, the only avenue left is through the international law of the United Nations. The issues to be raised
there are simple enough. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made-to-measure
because it requires "equality before the law", "a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal establish by law", "adequate facilities for one's defence", "compensation", "in the determination of one's rights and obligations", etc., etc..
The banks are so intimidating and have such a stranglehold over the judiciary in Australia that, if there are any decent and honest members among them, they are too frightened to speak out.
We are Geneva-bound.