In Flowers v State of New South Wales  NSWSC 526 the applicant sought to order that his claim for damages for malicious prosecution be heard by a jury, and that his application for a jury should itself be determined by a jury. In a very impressive document headed “Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court” Mr Flowers contends that trial by jury is an inalienable right guaranteed to him by the Magna Carta over 800 years ago and remains the common law of the land, and to deny trial by jury is to deny democracy and to deny democracy is treason.
Mr Flowers also submitted that all Acts of Parliament in Australia since 1901, with the Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia, have not been lawfully enacted. This is due to the fact that there have been no orders in the Privy Council for the appointments of any Vice Regal executive representatives of the Crown of the United Kingdom to grant the Royal Assent to bring any statutes into effect. The court rejected his submissions, and noted that:
“Mr Flowers has appeared throughout in these proceedings without legal advice or assistance or representation. The courts necessarily extend significant latitude to people in his position in order that indolence or suspicion or even choice should not frustrate the prospect of securing the protection of the law and the vindication of a right or access to justice. However, Mr Flowers is not alone in craving his day in court. The resources of this Court and others like it are finite and delays are often unavoidable despite the best efforts of all concerned. Mr Flowers wants his case heard and the State of New South Wales evidently shares his view. In such circumstances it is very important that Mr Flowers not become diverted by unhelpful voices chattering on the sidelines or by loud drums being beaten by folk with unhelpful agendas that are inevitably destined to frustrate his progress before eventually discarding him and moving on to their next target. There must necessarily be a limit to the amount of valuable court time Mr Flowers (or anyone like him) can be permitted to dedicate to silly arguments or confected obsessions that clog the court and waste everybody’s time without advancing his case.”
The background to Flowers v State of New South Wales  NSWSC 526 has been adequately recorded in Flowers v State of New South Wales  NSWSC 1308 and Flowers v State of New South Wales  NSWSC 1467, among others. The applicant has since appealed this decision on grounds of apprehended bias in Flowers v State of New South Wales  NSWSC 883 which brought the following response:
HIS HONOUR: By notice of motion filed on 22 June 2020, Mr Flowers moves the Court for an order that I recuse myself “as having any authority to determine any issues of law or fact in these proceedings”. That application is apparently supported by Mr Flowers’ affidavit filed on 22 June 2020. Unfortunately, Mr Flowers’ affidavit does not contain any single piece of relevant evidence that is directed to the question of actual or apprehended bias on my part. Indeed, as presently advised, I have no idea what Mr Flowers contends in support of his desire that I remove myself from hearing any contested issue in his proceedings.
- https://jade.io/article/729510 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/flowers-v-state-of-new-south-wales-2020-nswsc-526.pdf
- https://jade.io/article/755630 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/flowers-v-state-of-new-south-wales-2020-nswsc-883.pdf