A REFUSAL to pay a $22.50 dog registration fee has escalated into a costly Supreme Court stoush for Wodonga ratepayers.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Retired builder Jeffrey Sill has appealed to the court after a magistrate ordered he pay a $289 fine imposed by the council for failing to register his corgi Eckles.
Sill argued the constitution did not recognise councils and therefore they could not validly apply laws so he had no obligation to pay the fee.
After taking the matter to the County Court and being told he was in the wrong jurisdiction, Sill has appealed to the Supreme Court.
Justice Tim Ginnane last week ordered that the appeal be heard in September.
Sill, who is representing himself, and the city’s barrister Basil Stafford, were ordered to ready submissions and provide authorities.
The legal bill for the city is set to be tens of thousands, but Sill is unapologetic.
“They came for me, I didn’t come for them,” Sill said.
“If they want to pull out they can.
“To anyone who wants to say it costs ratepayer money I say ‘why should I rollover for them?’.
“The system is not right, what they’re scared of is exposing that, because if they lose a precedent has been set.”
Asked if he had sought any legal advice on his position, the widower was dismissive.
“I want to win this case, I’m not going to throw it away with having a barrister,” Sill said.
“You can’t trust them, they will screw you.”
Sill is a monarchist who argues royal assent has not been properly applied to Australia’s laws.
He attempted to subpoena legislative documents from the Victorian attorney-general to back his case but it was rejected as a “fishing expedition” by a government solicitor.
But Sill said the reply of the solicitor Antonio Mazzone buoyed his case because it stated “we have made all reasonable inquiries and have formed the view that no such documents exist”.
The council’s business services director Trevor Ierino declined to say how much the case was costing ratepayers, but indicated the city was committed to fighting on.
“This is not as simple as waiving an unpaid annual pet registration fee; this is an important principle about whether the Constitution is valid (hence whether the council has the legal right to perform its role), and is now a matter for the courts,” Mr Ierino said.
