DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Trimble v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] QDC 142
PARTIES:
ANTHONY JOHN TRIMBLE
(appellant)
v
COMMONWEALTH DIRECTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BD4952/17
DIVISION:
Criminal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
3 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 July 2018
JUDGE:
Williamson QC DCJ
ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE – where the appellant was charged with offences pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the charges – whether the appellant was required to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court.
COUNSEL:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Mr B Mumford for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Introduction
On 4 December 2017, Mr Trimble was convicted and sentenced in the Caboolture Magistrates Court for six breaches of the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth). This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. Only one ground of appeal is advanced, namely that the Court at first instance did not have jurisdiction to deal with the charges on the premise that Mr Trimble had not surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Magistrates Court at Caboolture did have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint and to convict and punish Mr Trimble.
Background
On 27 October 2015, the complaint of Ms Hegarty was filed in the Caboolture Magistrates Court. The complaint contained eight charges alleging Mr Trimble had breached various provisions of the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth). He was charged with:
(a) Two counts of removing property within twelve months prior to the presentation of a petition which resulted in his bankruptcy[1];
[1]Sections 265(7) and 265(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
(b) Three counts of removing property after the presentation of a petition which resulted in his bankruptcy[2];
[2]Section 265(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
(c) One count of failing to deliver to the trustee in bankruptcy, as directed, an amount of $5,070.30[3];
(d) One count of failing to fully and truly disclose to the trustee in bankruptcy information about dealings with respect to cash holdings held in a Bendigo Bank account[4]; and
(e) One count of failing to comply with a notice given to him under section 77CA of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 wherein he was required to furnish a copy of a statement of affairs to the trustee in bankruptcy[5].
[3]Section 265(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
[4]Section 265(1)(ca) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
[5]Section 267B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Mr Trimble did not enter a plea with respect to the eight charges. The Magistrate entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf on 30 November 2016. A plea may be entered in this way having regard to sections 145 and 148 of the Justices Act1886 (Qld) and section 601 of the Criminal Code (Qld)[6].
[6]Wales v Weir [2012] QDC 312, [24].
The trial commenced on 6 February 2017. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Trimble made an application to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court. The nature of the relief sought by him in the application was set out in a document that was marked Exhibit 1 by the Magistrate. The exhibit is titled “CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT” and contains the following statement:
“The Defendant claims Relief that:
(1) a Special Jury adjudge that the Magistrates Court at Caboolture, Queensland, has no jurisdiction to proceed summarily, ie: without Trial by Jury, in this action;
(2) the Special Jury order that this action be scheduled for Trial by Jury on the same Summons as filed.”
The application challenging the Court’s jurisdiction was dismissed and the Magistrate provided brief ex tempore reasons for doing so. The trial of the matter then proceeded to be heard on 6 February 2017, 22 May 2017 and 4 September 2017. It is clear from the transcript of the proceedings that Mr Trimble cross-examined witnesses, gave evidence on his own behalf and tendered documents during the course of the hearing.
On 4 December 2017, the Magistrate delivered reasons for judgment wherein he convicted Mr Trimble in respect of six of the eight charges contained in the complaint. In the orthodox way, the Magistrate then turned to deal with sentence. The appellant was sentenced to two months imprisonment for charges one and two, a nine month period of imprisonment was imposed in respect of charges five, six, seven and eight. The Magistrate further ordered that Mr Trimble be released having served three months imprisonment upon entering into a recognisance of $1,000.00, conditioned so that he be of good behaviour for a period of two years and lodge a statement of affairs by 4 April 2018.
The issue to be determined
The notice of appeal filed on Mr Trimble’s behalf identifies the following grounds of appeal, namely:
(a) the sentence is manifestly excessive; and
(b) the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
During the course of oral submissions before me, Mr Trimble formally abandoned the issues identified in his Notice of Appeal.[7] He pursued only one issue: the Magistrate did not have power to hear and determine the complaint because he had not surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court. In support of this submission, Mr Trimble relied upon section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Based on that provision he further submitted: “the common law overrides the civil court matters”; “no crime has been committed here”; and “there is no injured party”.
[7]T1-17 – T1-19.
The issue for me to determine is whether Mr Trimble was required to surrender himself to the jurisdiction of the Court before the Magistrate could proceed to hear and determine the Complaint.
Before dealing with this issue, I pause to observe that Mr Trimble made the following oral submission during the course of argument inviting me to excuse myself from the hearing:[8]
Appellant:“I am Anthony John Trimble, the filing party, your Honour, and I am a man presenting today on behalf of my own body politic, on my own corporation, my surname Trimble, as a subject of the Crown, your Honour. I am a man presenting today, your Honour, on behalf of my own body politic.”
…
Appellant:“I do need to trust this honourable court today, your Honour. So if you, your Honour, have no sworn an oath of allegiance to the Crown and lawful sovereign to Australia, her majesty the Queen Elizabeth II, a juristic entity, then I require that you leave the court room now. I require you to recuse yourself or excuse yourself immediately. Thank-you, your Honour.”
[8]T1-3, line 16-27.
I did not accept Mr Trimble’s submission that I should recuse myself from hearing the matter and declined to do so having regard to section 59(2) and Schedule 1 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001. Mr Trimble was informed of the effect of these legislative provisions during the course of oral submissions. Once informed of these provisions, he no longer persisted with this submission.
Was the Court’s jurisdiction contingent on Mr Trimble submitting to its jurisdiction?
The complaint before the Caboolture Magistrates Court was properly brought under the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) with respect to eight breaches of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). As one would expect, Mr Trimble was called upon to enter a plea. He refused to do so. Contrary to the submissions of Mr Trimble filed on 25 July 2018, the Magistrate correctly entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. The trial then proceeded wherein Mr Trimble was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and call or lead evidence in his defence. Detailed written reasons were delivered by the Magistrate wherein Mr Trimble was found guilty of six of the eight charges alleged in the complaint.
I was not referred to any provision of the Justices Act 1886 (Cth) that requires a defendant to “submit” to the jurisdiction of the Court prior to dealing with a validly brought complaint. Nor was I referred to any common law principle that would likewise call for a defendant to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court.
The jurisdiction of the Court was established by the bringing of a valid complaint. If the jurisdiction of the Court was to be challenged, that had to be raised in precisely the way Mr Trimble did. He brought an application to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction. That application was heard and determined. He was unsuccessful. The decision to dismiss the application is not challenged in this appeal.
Mr Trimble relies upon section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in support of the proposition that he was required to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court before the hearing of the complaint proceeded. Section 80 relevantly provides:
“So far as the laws of the Commonwealth are not applicable or so far as their provisions are insufficient to carry them into effect, or to provide adequate remedies or punishment, the common law in Australia as modified by the Constitution and by the statute law in force in the State or Territory in which the Court in which the jurisdiction is exercised is held shall, so far as it is applicable and not inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, govern all Courts exercising federal jurisdiction in the exercise of their jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters.”
Mr Trimble’s reliance upon section 80 is misplaced. The provision contemplates that the common law will govern in particular circumstances. This provision has no work to do in the present case. There is no common law proposition supporting Mr Trimble’s point that he was required to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court before the Magistrate could proceed to hear and determine the complaint. The jurisdiction of the Court was established by the bringing of a valid complaint under the Justices Act 1886.
It was also submitted by Mr Trimble that no law was broken and there are no victims. A breach of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is an offence and Mr Trimble was validly charged and convicted for breaching that Act. The absence of a “victim” is irrelevant. The identification of a victim was not an element of any of the offences for which Mr Trimble was convicted and punished.
I am not persuaded that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding before him.
Mr Trimble confirmed during oral submissions that the jurisdictional point was the only matter upon which he relied in this appeal. He specifically confirmed that no other issue was raised with respect to conviction or sentence in the event the jurisdictional point failed.
As Mr Trimble’s jurisdictional point has failed, so must this appeal.
Conclusion
I order that the appeal is dismissed.