Blog Archives

High Court expulsion of Senator Culleton wrong at law – UK Supreme Court

Exclusive report by Jim O’Toole

Culleton advised by UK Supreme Court his senate expulsion was wrong at law leaving the way open for other expelled senators to reclaim their seats

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has advised Western Australia Senator-in-exile Rod Culleton the High Court of Australia has erred by removing him from the senate.

‘Bank Basher’ WA senator in exile Rod Culleton heading back to the senate

In January Culleton filed an appeal, contrary to legal advice, against his senate expulsion in the Supreme Court(Privy Council) citing s47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, which had been ignored by the High Court.

This section states: ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’

The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, expelled him from the senate in 2017 on a referral from then Attorney General, Senator George Brandis.

“Preliminary guidance from my case manager in the UK Supreme Court referred me to a legal maxim from a case precedent, Hilary Term [2014] UKSC 3.”

The case precedent cites “….. Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England)  says that the whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its original from this one maxim: ‘that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that house to which it relates, and not elsewhere.

“The senate now has no choice but to remove all of those candidates who filled casual vacancies created by the High Court and reinstate me, because a legal maxim is the final say, there is no law above it,” Culleton said.

“This includes Jacquie Lambie and Bob Day who have indicated to me they will now contest their expulsions by the High Court under s44 of the Constitution.

“The senate will have to decide on my eligibility to sit as a senator.”

Tomorrow Culleton intends to inform the Clerk of the senate of this legal maxim leaving the Clerk no choice but to ask the senate to reinstate any senator expelled by the High Court.

“The Parliament is compelled and bound by this maxim. The senate cannot abuse its powers and must immediately ask the surrogate senators to remove themselves from the House as they are only filling a vacancy,” he said.

“Furthermore, I believe those unelected surrogate Senators are now impersonating a Commonwealth Public Official and putting the Senate in disrepute through their unlawful representations and I quote  Odgers Australian Senate Practice, 13th Edition, 2012  page 160:

Presumably if a conviction is quashed on appeal the vacancy which was taken to have occurred upon conviction and sentence is taken not to have occurred. If such a presumed vacancy has been filled the filling of the vacancy would then also be void.”

Culleton files in UK High Court to overturn senate expulsion

by Jim O’Toole

Senator in exile, Rodney Culleton, after being locked in battle with the corporate Australian legal system since 2016, has filed an action in the High Court of the United Kingdom to have his expulsion from the senate overturned.

Culleton said yesterday he was excited the High Court had accepted his Constitutional argument in the first step to overturn the Australian High Court direction he be thrown out of the senate because of bankruptcy.

“I have never been bankrupt,” he said.

WA Senator in exile, Rodney Culleton, has moved aside the tradition of Australian litigants being denied access to the Privy Council and higher UK courts by having the High Court of the UK accept his Constitutional argument about his wrongful dismissal from the senate.

A single judge of the Federal Court issued sequestration orders against Culleton in 2017 freezing his assets in spite of a 21 day stay of proceedings being granted by the Federal Court.

Vexatious litigant and Perth businessman Dick Lester claimed Culleton owed him $200,000 over a failed sale contract on land, a claim pursued hotly by Culleton but he says Federal Court Judge Michael Barker failed to follow court rules, ignored all due process and did not look at his affidavits.

“When I was sworn-in as a senator on August 30, 2016, I swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth 2 of the United Kingdom, making an oath to uphold the law.

“I did not swear allegiance to the fictitious Queen of Australia.

“This ceremony was witnessed by the Governor General and his deputy.

“It should be noted the Commonwealth Constitution Act of Australia 1900, (UK) remains in force and cannot be repealed by an Australian Government.

“The High Court of Australia does not have the jurisdiction to throw senators or members out of Parliament. Either House has the only jurisdiction under s47 of the Constitution to deal with a Member’s qualification.

“The Constitution is everyone’s contract but we can’t get a remedy in Australian star chambers which don’t recognise the Constitution.”

The HCA has long drawn criticism from those being refused a hearing on Constitutional matters, with litigants claiming the court is not functioning as a Chapter 3 court as required by the Constitution.

Culleton gave the example of any senator or MHR who files an action in the HCA. It is unlawful for the court to hear any evidence relating to parliamentary procedures under s16 (iii) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, he said.

“As a result they threw out my Motion 163 without having jurisdiction because they are not sitting as a Chapter 3 court operating under the proper Crown.

“There is no such thing as the ‘Queen of Australia’.

Culleton has asked the Law Lords of the Queens Bench to examine his request to debate his senate Motion 163 of 2016 which the Solicitor General filed in the HCA.

The statement of agreed facts filed in the HCA by the Solicitor General states a NSW Magistrate, in Culleton’s absence could not imprison him for the alleged theft of a $7 truck key from his own truck.

This matter could have, if imprisoned, disqualified Culleton from the senate under s44 of the Constitution.

“Motion 163 of 2016 was a requirement passed by the House announcing that Attorney General George Brandis’ referral of November 7, 2016 to the HCA is faulty and that there needs to be further investigation into that faulty action,  originally orchestrated by former Senators Parry and  Brandis, which was never passed by any procedure of law, ,” Mr Culleton said.

He said the senate could not lawfully vote on Brandis’ December 7 motion at the time because there were insufficient senators present to form a Quorum under s22 of the Constitution and the relevant material was withheld from the chamber by Senator Brandis and Senator Pauline Hanson.

Culleton’s legal team remains in London until a hearing date is set by the full bench.