Page 1

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

4-9-2015

c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Cc:

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Re: 20150826-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council

Sir/Madam,

I received a 2 September 2015 correspondence from ES&a Lawyers (their reference

BLS:RMO:9201 as to that the court on 20 August 2015 adjourned the matter to 17 September
2015 and would proceed in my absenteeism if I were not to attend.
I recall where I attended to a hearing (in another matter) and the other party didnt appear. The
Court then instructed me to provide a copy of its orders (adjourning the matter) upon the other
party. Hence, the obvious issue is did the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud issue orders
and why was such an order not provided to me. After all, my right of appeal against any order it
made commences from the date such an order is made. Now ES&A delayed their correspondence
from 20 August 2015 till sending their 2 September 2015 correspondence received today on 4
September 2015 and as such I view undermined my right of appeal against any orders, if I
desired to appeal.
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the
appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the
lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the
basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to
controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they
may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not
only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary
trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of
the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.
[Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900)
p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty
of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons
for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but
the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE

I do not know what kind of orders precisely were made by the Court and by whom and if the
orders were made by some friend of ES&a Lawyers which could in itself in validate the orders
issued.
The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:
QUOTE
p1
4-9-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

Page 2
"The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is
an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is
disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii)
there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.
For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be real
likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by Lord
Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done,
but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'
END QUOTE

Some 2 decades ago the Magistrates Court of Victoria in Swan Hill issued orders against me, in
my absenteeism but on appeal the County Court of Victoria set aside the orders.
It is also relevant what the court recorded as to justify on legal grounds to adjourn the matter. For
example was it recorded that it was a contested hearing, etc?
.

Because any order of the court, including interlocutory orders (not just final orders) could be
subjected to an appeal pending the records of the court or the lack thereof, it is essential that the
court itself provide me with all relevant details. Hence I view any orders to adjourn and any other
orders the court may have made should have been appropriately conveyed to me without undue
deal in time as now eventuated of a loss of more than 14 days since allegedly the orders were
made by the court. The court should never itself become some kind of vehicle to obstruct the
course of justice, by concealing the actual reasons of its orders, interlocutory or otherwise. Also,
my right to have sufficient time to prepare for a case is clearly undermined where without
explanation ES&a lawyers failed to immediately notify me about matters, if this was directed by
the court. If the Court didnt direct ES&a Lawyers to do so, then why not and why then didnt
the court itself immediately advise me of all relevant details?
Again:
Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924):
'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'

As I indicated in past writings and maintain the same the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud court is in all circumstances not the proper venue to hear and determine matters hence it
is critical why the court nevertheless adjourned matters to be heard on 17 September 2015 before
the same venue! It is in itself a gross denial of justice if the court were to insist to hear this matter
after I attend or in my absenteeism, on another hearing date. This as it undermines the benefit to
me I may have obtained had the court considered this before adjourning the matter to the same
venue at St Arnaud. Hence, the reasons why the matter was adjourned to 17 September 2015 for
hearing at the same venue, and relevant orders are critical for any appeal also as to determine if
the court did or didnt dispose of my objections, and so upon what legal grounds.
Again:
Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924):
'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

p2
4-9-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com