Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker didn’t accept Stephen Maunsell’s apology for his outbursts in court. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
A man’s “limited” apology for repeatedly swearing at and insulting court officials wasn’t enough to prevent him from being found in contempt.
Stephen Maunsell represented himself in proceedings in the ACT Magistrates Court where he was accused of repeatedly disrupting court proceedings by interrupting, claiming court officials were corrupt and not following instructions from a magistrate.
In a recent decision, Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker said it was uncontroversial whether Maunsell had been in contempt, as he did not dispute that.
Given Maunsell’s admission, she had to consider whether he had “purged” himself of the contempt.
“Clearly the unduly argumentative, highly insulting and baselessly accusatory conduct engaged in by Mr Maunsell interfered with the proper administration of justice and had the effect of undermining the authority of the Court,” she said.
During one of the incidents, he interrupted a magistrate several times and labelled court officials as “a bunch of corrupt c—ts”.
“I’ve provided evidence, black and f–king white evidence, and you just disregard it. You disregard it,” he said.
Maunsell would also refuse repeated requests to stop swearing during proceedings.
“If you don’t like words that are in the English dictionary, go and speak to the person who writes the English dictionary. It’s in the English dictionary. It’s a valid word,” he said in defence of his chosen words.
At another time, he again refused to stop swearing and claimed he was only “asking quite legitimate questions” when he was told he was interrupting proceedings.
Maunsell would apologise for these comments in an affidavit prepared during contempt proceedings.
The court would hear that while he admitted that he didn’t draft the document, he agreed with what was written in it.
“I can now look back on it and go, ‘Yes, I accept I was wrong. I take responsibility for that and I absolutely apologise to those people that – that I offended during those times’,” the affidavit reads.
He would “take back” most comments, with the exception of another magistrate he labelled a “raving feminist” and two lawyers he accused of lying.
During a cross-examination, he continued to insist those comments were true, saying court transcripts had proof the lawyers lied.
He also claimed he was referring to an interview the magistrate had given, where she used the phrase.
“The Defendant fails to appreciate that his use of the phrase ‘raving feminist’ in a derogatory way to impugn Her Honour’s impartiality is entirely distinguishable from any use she may have made of the term to describe herself in an out of court context,” Chief Magistrate Walker said.
“It was clearly intended to support his position that she was corrupt and had made her decision because of a philosophical bias without proper regard to the evidence before her.”
She also didn’t accept Maunsell’s claims during cross-examination that he was unfamiliar with how to behave in a courtroom.
He had claimed that he didn’t have legal training and didn’t know that, for example, he shouldn’t answer phone calls in the courtroom.
Rather, she said he had been warned multiple times to stop his behaviour.
“On multiple occasions, Mr Maunsell was warned not to use offensive language in a courtroom, not to interrupt a judicial officer or judicial processes, not to engage in an argument with a judicial officer, and to leave the courtroom as directed.”
Ultimately, Chief Magistrate Walker found that while Maunsell had shown “significant fortitude, humility and restraint” during contempt proceedings, he had failed to “purge” the contempt and would be punished for contempt.
She also noted that he had only apologised after the proceedings began against him, and he would have known that his behaviour was inappropriate at the time.
No one is against renewable energy, this story is not about a renewable energy facility. It is a… View