Mr Oswald Cobblepot was subject to 3 enforcement orders made by the Registrar of the Magistrates Court, all of which related to expiation notices issued as a result of various traffic and parking offences. 

 Mr Cobblepot sought to challenge the orders in the Magistrates Court under s 14(1) of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996(SA). That section provides as follows:

 

Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA).

 

 

Section 14 - Review of enforcement orders and effect on the right of appeal against conviction

(1)  Subject to this section, the person liable under an enforcement order may apply to the Court for a review of the order within 30 days of being given notice of the order.

(2)  The Court may entertain an application made out of time if it thinks a good reason exists for doing so.

(3)   An application can only be made on the ground that--

(a)  the expiation notice should not have been given to the applicant in the first instance; or

(b)  the procedural requirements of this Act or any other Act were not complied with; or

(c)   the applicant failed to receive a notice required by this Act or any other Act; or

(ca)  the issuing authority failed to receive--

1. a notice sent to the authority by the applicant electing to be prosecuted for the offence; or
2. a statutory declaration or other document sent to the authority by the applicant in accordance with a notice required by law to accompany the expiation notice or expiation reminder notice; or

(d)  the applicant has expiated the offence, or offences, under the notice; or

(e)  the amount shown as due under the order has not taken into account the payment of an instalment.

(4)  The Court, after conducting a review of an enforcement order, may--

(a)   confirm the order;

(b)   vary or revoke the order;

(c)   make any ancillary order. ...

(6)  A decision of the Court made on a review of an enforcement order is not subject to appeal by the person liable under the order.

 

 

Magistrate Bellbottom heard the proceedings under section 14 brought by Mr Cobblepot. Upon discovering that the applicant was Mr Cobblepot, the Magistrate made the following comments:

Well, if it isn't the famous Mr Oswald Cobblepot! Now which poor departmental officer has had the misfortune of stumbling across your case Mr Cobblepot? ...

In the past few years, I seem to recall that we have heard cases brought by your very self against no less than 4 government departments, all of which have been duly dismissed. Having heard 2 of those cases, I can attest that no more of this court's time will be wasted on frivolous claims Mr Cobblepot. You had better have a good case to present.

Mr Cobblepot stated that he had evidence indicating that he was being victimised by the traffic officers in his local area who would wait in the vicinity of his car and issue notices within one minute of his parking ticket's expiration. 

Magistrate Bellbottom stopped Mr Cobblepot within 2 minutes of speaking and stated that he did not wish to hear outlandish claims of victimisation. The Magistrate confirmed the orders of the Registrar under s 14(4)(a), and ordered that Mr Cobblepot pay both costs and a penalty of $500 for bringing a frivolous claim and wasting the court's time.

Mr Cobblepot seeks judicial review of the decision made by Magistrate Bellbottom in the Supreme Court. His case is based on the apprehension of bias on the part of Magistrate Bellbottom, and the fact that the Magistrate acted in excess of his jurisdiction by imposing a costs order and a penalty against Mr Cobblepot.

The Crown will be seeking to have the application for judicial review dismissed on the basis that no jurisdictional error has been committed. The proceedings have been set to be heard before the Full Court of the Supreme Court. please be specific and use cases to support the answer.