In BarrettLennard -v- Bembridge [2015] WASC 353 the appellant contended Biblical law is supreme and that the magistrate refused to hear Biblical references as vowed to be upheld by its supreme governor Queen Elizabeth II in her Coronation oath, and that due to Deuteronomy 4:2 Christians cannot be compelled to hold a drivers licence, give accurate details of name and address, register a vehicle or mount registration plates. Further, that the WA Government is a rogue government, has unlawfully altered the office of the Governor, that various sections of the Constitution Act 1889 have been ignored, and that it orders a system of direct democracy.
“Because I am a Christian, I need it clarified as to whether Bible law and God’s law and the coronation oath overrule the parliamentary law of Western Australia.”
The position in that respect is crystal clear. None of the Bible, God’s law or the coronation oath overrules the laws made by the Parliament of Western Australia. In England, that has been so since 1688. In what became the State of Western Australia, it has been so since the advent of the Parliament of Western Australia. In British Railways Board v Pickin, Lord Reid said as follows: “In earlier times many learned lawyers seemed to have believed that an Act of Parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of Parliament was finally demonstrated by the Revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.” This passage has been cited with approval in various courts in Australia. Any moral principles derived from scripture do not detract from the sovereignty of Parliament. Nothing in the coronation oath detracts from the supremacy of Parliament or from the efficacy of laws passed by Parliament.”
Click to access barrett-lennard-v-bembridge-2015-wasc-353.pdf
.
You must log in to post a comment.