The appellant was convicted of two counts of breaching the prescribed requirements for warranties against defects and one count of making a false or misleading representation concerning the exclusion of a right or remedy, in his business. The appeal in Ashwell v Commissioner for Consumer Protection  WASC 337 was also against the sentences imposed. When the appellant was asked why he refuses to come to the bar table to make submissions, he replied “I don’t believe in your court”. The written submissions explained:
“The man, David Ashwell, at no time, grants willing consent to being a party to these proceedings, but attends merely for the purpose of putting matters right. Attendance is under duress: to bring clarity to falsified information, to serve compensation bills for harm and injury incurred, to hold accountability by those who chose to harm Mr Ashwell, his wife, and his livelihood to make a point out of a matter that was exploited beyond any rational proportion. Attendance is under protest and as a result of injury incurred. It is recognised and acknowledged that this court, the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the Magistrates Court of Geraldton Western Australia, is NOT following procedures under a Common Law Jurisdiction. Silence is consent. Well not in this court room on June 5th 2015. Let it be clearly known and understood, that consent to this paradigm is NOT granted.”
The appellant went on to say “The Australian Government is an internal ‘legal fiction’ registered in a foreign land, thus violating Clause 8 of the Preamble of the Australian Constitution” and that he does not recognise the authority or jurisdiction of the court, or the Constitution after “Gough Whitlam changed it in 1972”. The judge informed him:
“You need to be aware there’s a long, long line of single judge and full Court of Appeal decisions on, I think, the point that you want to raise about the Constitution and the Magna Carta and all of those have gone against the appellants. And in one of them leave to appeal to the High Court was rejected. Those submissions and variants of them have been held to be devoid of legal merit: Hedley v Spivey  WASCA 116.
The appeal was dismissed.