The appellant, who also identifies himself by his tribal name Parlini, appealed his conviction for aggravated assault in Kerinaiua v Andreou  NTSC 87, on grounds that the magistrate made decisions which are beyond his scope of authority, that the police used false instruments in order to justify removing himself and his family from their home and lands, breaching Section 5 of the Genocide Convention Act 1949 (Cth), and that the High Court is the only court within the Crown’s realm which can deliver a judgment to determine matters regarding the treaty between himself and his tribe in respect of their law, lands, song dance and culture.
An application made to remove the proceeding to the High Court, was rejected by two judges of the High Court in Kerinaiua v Crown in Right of the Northern Territory  HCASL 224, who determined that it raised no question warranting the attention of the High Court.
“The appellant filed an affidavit in support of his grounds of appeal. While the contents are confusing and irrelevant, indeed somewhat bizarre, there are two contentions apparently raised. The first is that the appellant is not subject to the laws of the Northern Territory because he is a member of a sovereign tribe. However, whether or not the appellant is a member of a formerly sovereign tribe, as he asserts, it has been consistently held that Indigenous Australians are subject to the laws of the Commonwealth and the laws of the States or Territories in which they may reside.”
The application was dismissed.