Mills-Edward v Russell [2011] WADC 9

In Mills-Edward v Russell [2011] WADC 9 the appellant argued the lower court decision was invalid because the court was not a Chapter III court and that the magistrate swore an oath of allegiance to “the State of Western Australia”.

“As I understand, however, from Mr Mills‑Edward’s submissions to me, his grounds are intended to go further and relate to changed references from the Crown and Her Majesty to the State and the Governor, in all Western Australian legislation.  Because of this change Mr Mills‑Edward argues that the Magistrates Court is invalid. Such an argument has been raised before and rejected on each occasion: see Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260 (p 5 to 14; 20) Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289 (at p 7 to 12, 15) Glew v Governor of Western Australia (2009) 222 FLR 417Shaw v McGinty [2006] WASCA 231 (at p 25 to 29) and Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95 (at p 40 to 42).”

The court stated that a similar argument as the one raised had been rejected by the Court of Appeal in Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87  (at p 14 to 15) that “the proceedings before the primary judge did not comply with the requirements of chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution”. 

Click to access mills-edward-v-russell-2011-wadc-9.pdf

.