Best v Police [2015] SASC 190

Best v Police [2015] SASC 190

The appellant contended that the trial should not have proceeded ex-parte, that the Magistrates Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction; the device used to measure his speed did not meet the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) and the certificates of accuracy were invalid and the method of testing it by the police did not comply with s 10 of the National Measurement Act, that under common law he has not hurt anybody or caused any loss or injury; and that he was entitled to a trial by jury.

I will be representing myself under common law not statute law to which I do not consent , I will be relying on Australian constitutional laws including section 1 legislative power section 2 Governor General section 58 royal assent section 109 inconsistency of laws section 118 recognition of laws section 117 rights of residents in states section 80 trial by jury amongst the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , Bill of Rights 1689 , National Measurement Act and the NSC number assigned to this device , burden of proof , fair trial as well as presenting a letter from the ex Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs which is quite clear in spelling out that Australia’s current legal and political system in use in Australia and its states and territories has no basis in law. I will therefore be seeking full dismissal under article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice where an international treaty is cited as a defence , failing this I will be requesting adjournment “sine die” and prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that information provided regarding Australia’s sovereignty, the Constitution, the Treaty of Versailles, the Statute of Westminster , the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not apply to my common law rights and statutes within Australia.”

Click to access best-v-police-2015-sasc-190.pdf