In Millington v Police  SASC 52 the appellant had been convicted of a speeding offence via a speed camera and appealed the conviction. He alleged that the photographic evidence did not meet the requirements of the Evidence Act 1929, or the relevant certificates that of the National Measurement Act, and the accuracy that of the manufacturer’s operations manual, and it was therefore inadmissible, and the prosecution prohibited by the Oaths Act 1936, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The appellant further contended that the legislation had not been enacted in the name of the Queen in the covering clauses to the Constitution, and assented by the personal hand of the Sovereign, and that the Magistrates Court, comprising a single magistrate, was not properly constituted within the meaning of Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution.
“In any event, the judicial power of this State could actually be exercised by a body that is not a Chapter III court. However, I am not suggesting that the Magistrates Court is not a Chapter III court. I am simply saying that one magistrate acting in accordance with the Magistrates Court Act 1991 is entitled to hear these matters.”
He had served a number of documents, attempting a foisted contract, such as a “Notice of understanding and intent, claim of right” and then later a “Notice of Default” when it was “unrebutted” within the stated period.
“The purported legal effect of this series of documents is most unclear. The best I can understand is that D3 purports to relate to a unilateral contract formed on the basis of the earlier correspondence between Mr Millington and the police. It certainly has no relevance to a prosecution for an offence under the Road Traffic Act and I very much doubt that it would have any legal effect in any context. Be that as it may, it clearly does not operate to preclude a summary prosecution. Regrettably Mr Millington may have been misled by documents that are from time to time published on the internet.”