A Barrister's Blog

In August 2013, the applicant was charged with an offence under the Commonwealth Criminal Code of using a carriage service in a manner that reasonable persons would regard as being offensive. The matter was dealt with summarily in the Local Court and she was convicted. She then appealed her conviction in the District Court and the matter ultimately made it to the Court of Appeal (see Morgan v District Court of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 105 )(see below).

She was clearly not on good terms with the local Byron Bay publican when she wrote the following email (which was the basis for the charge): 

Re: Update – Life Ban from Hotel Great Northern, Railway Friendly Bar and “all Mooney Hotels”.

The following information is not a threat, it is an attempt to educate – though I concede that comprehending the lesson requires a greater intelligence than that demonstrated by Hannah and Amber to date. Be grateful that I am the sort of person who always resolves disputes lawfully – others would have arranged for Amber and Hannah to star in a ‘snuff f**k’ movie, put a bullet in Mike’s head, sold [their child] to a brothel in a third world country – leaving Tom and Cath alive to wonder whether or not it is really worth f**king over a person simply because you can. Old Celtic saying – Mooney being an Irish name, I trust the Mooney Clann will comprehend the message: “Never start a War without considering the possibility that, should you loose the War – all men will be killed; all women raped and enslaved; and all children butchered”.

So why did this end up in the Court of Appeal?  Her (2 years out of time) application for  judicial review of her conviction was successful because she hadn’t consented to the matter being dealt with summarily in the Local Court. This obviously impressed Meagher JA who made the following observation:

[21] The applicant appeared in person, having declined the opportunity to be represented by a solicitor funded by a grant of legal aid. Her stated reason for having done so is that as “a Druid (Celtic Pagan Priest) … being represented by a solicitor in Court is not an option.” According to Strabo, druids were once held in such high regard that they could quell any private or public dispute, including a stand-off between opposing armies: Geographica at 4.4.4. Their jurisdiction was divine and limitless. By contrast, and fortunately for the applicant, the jurisdiction of Australian inferior courts is statutory and limited.

Creative commons acknowledgement for the photograph.