Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252

[2020] QCA 252 COURT OF APPEAL SOFRONOFF P MULLINS JA BODDICE J CA No 78 of 2020 DC No 3771 of 2019 BRADLEY, Ross James Applicant v THE CROWN BRISBANE FRIDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2020 JUDGMENT SOFRONOFF P: The applicant was charged with one count of unlicensed driving. He was convicted and fined $150 with no conviction recorded. He applied to the magistrate to dismiss the charge on the ground that for reasons that are not clear a police officer had no power to charge him or to commence the proceedings in question. The argument was obvious nonsense and the magistrate rightly rejected it. After hearing the evidence led by the prosecution, the magistrate found the applicant guilty as charged. Not satisfied with this outcome, the applicant appealed to the District Court and argued that he was something which he called a citizen sovereign and that the laws of Queensland did not apply to him. If that was true, then it would be hard to understand why the applicant was agitating his complaints before this court, which is one that has been established under the laws -- 1 of 2 -- 2 that he says do not apply to him. This paradox did not trouble the applicant and he has now applied for leave to appeal against Judge Moynihan QC’s order dismissing his appeal. That the applicant is merely persisting in putting forward a jumble of gobbledygook to support his application in this court can be seen at once if one reads only the two opening sentences of his purported outline of argument: “My BRADLEY person (conjoined with the BRADLEY ‘spiritual’ family body-politic) is my own “body politic” by succession, at Law. It is my natural body incorporated at the supreme Christian Law and is my own jurisdiction.” This application is an abuse of the court’s process and should be dismissed. MULLINS JA: I agree. BODDICE J: I agree. -- 2 of 2 --