The appellant was charged with trespassing and obstruction offences. At the Magistrates Court he demanded a trial by jury per Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta, which was refused and he was convicted of the summary offences. He appealed in Jackson v Western Australia Police  WASC 72, arguing the denial of a jury trial “breached my inherent jurisdiction, unalienable rights, common law rights under the original constitution”. He demanded to be heard in a Chapter III court, and complained he was insulted by the primary judge:
Ground 3 of the appeal contends that Magistrate Heaney abused Mr Jackson, insulted him and Mr Jackson felt intimidated. I accept that some of the language used by his Honour revealed some frustration with the application by Mr Jackson. This is regrettable. However, as observed by McLure P in Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire  WASCA 5, having to deal repeatedly with issues that have been held to be devoid of merit can, not unreasonably, induce judicial exasperation and frustration, particularly in a busy court with heavy demands on its resources. The contentions raised in ground 3 add nothing to the ground of appeal and I need not deal with the issue further.
Yesterday Mr Jackson filed by facsimile, an affidavit and written submissions raising matters which were of a similar nature as that dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Glew v White  WASCA 138, that is, they raised eccentric theories about the judicial power of the Commonwealth, the Constitution, the right to trial by jury and the status of the courts in this state. None of these submissions have relevance to the grounds of appeal, and none of the submissions raise an issue which has any prospect of succeeding. They do not give rise to any appealable error or miscarriage of justice.