facebooktwitterpinterest
mobil menu

Melbourne Magistrates' Court

  1. Melbourne
  2. Melbourne Courthouses

Reviews, get directions and contact details for Melbourne Magistrates' Court

Melbourne Magistrates' Court
"Bail and Remand Court BaRC is open from 8:30am to 9pm seven days a week."
Address: 233 William St , Melbourne 3000, VIC, AU
Phone: (03) 9628 7777
State: VIC
City: Melbourne
Zip Code: 3000


Opening Hours

Monday: 09:00-17:00
Tuesday: 09:00-17:00
Wednesday: 09:00-17:00
Thursday: 09:00-17:00
Friday: 09:00-17:00

Update Info

related searches: melbourne magistrates court list, moorabbin magistrates court, melbourne magistrates court case search, dandenong magistrates court list, melbourne magistrates court results, search magistrates court lists, broadmeadows magistrates court list, magistrates court dandenong
Reviews
Well it's court so it's not great. Always had positive interactions with staff. Moss on the roof
Unlawful , Private business entity, not a legal entity under commercial law, not a lawful entity under chapter III of the 1901 constitution , tries to enforce private contracts under coercion and duress like the bail act 1977 an act that undermines the fundamental principles of common law, observance of due process of law, any purported legislation that undermines the entire foundation of law that dates back 820 years can never be a legitimate legislation, , it would be invalid on its face, a parliament acting for the good of the people, can never give effect to such an act... 1 year 1977 1 Document, no consent from the people...Undermining habeaus corpus, bill of rights 1688, Magna Carta 1295, observance of due process of law 1368, which are contained within Imperial acts application 1980 vic currently in force, commonwealth of Australia constitution 1901, crimes act 1914, Judiciary act 1903. How can 1 act supersede 820 years of jurisprudence, the answer is quite simple, IT CANNOT. Before anyone has is accountable to this misrepresented deceptive contract that is executed by way for coercion, duress and extortion, all member of and entire entities of public office must first be accountable to all their agreements/contracts, a government acting outside its scope of office and outside the scope of the law, is in itself unlawful, therefore it cannot propose, pass, give effect or enforce any law , the entities of public office have no standing, they are invalid and void, due to their breach, way before anyone of us would be required to even entertain the bail 1977, the parliaments work for us, they make legislation concerning public office, services and anything that falls under the obligation of acting public offices and servants they can make legislation, for the purpose of logistics and general order concerning these legal fictions, the state parliament is very limited in its power to make legislation What they cannot do, is make legislations that controls, interfere or burden the peoples lives or is anyway directed at any living sentient being, they do not and can never have this power , the intension within the federal and state constitution are very clear, uk Hansard could not be more absolute in that the state is limited in it's power, section 123 altering the states limits, sect 109 inconsistency of laws, section 117, states laws must be uniform, R v Buddee NSWDC 2016 In DPP v Magnus Kaba [2014] VSC 52, . Much of what follows is directly attributable to the exposition of the authorities in that case. liberty is only to be curtailed by specific provisions of law. At common law any unlawful interference of any kind with personal liberty creates an action in damages, “[e]ven apparently minor deprivations of liberty are viewed seriously by the common law” and ground monetary compensation. The powers of the individual and the State are not to be exactly equated. It is wrong to equate the same principle pertaining to private individuals - that they may do everything which is not specifically forbidden - with the powers of police officers where the opposite is true. Any action must be justified by law, they must be able to point to lawful authority for all actions undertaken. They must act in a bona fide exercise of a power and not for an ulterior purpose. In Williams v The Queen 1986 161 CLR 278; [1986] HCA 88, the High Court was concerned with the extent of police powers to detain in custody for questioning someone lawfully arrested. Justices Mason and Brennan referred with approval to the statement of Deane J in Cleland v the Queen in which he said: “It is of critical importance to the existence and protection of personal liberty under the law that the restraints which the law imposes on police powers of arrest and detention be scrupulously observed.” “The right to personal liberty cannot be impaired or taken away without lawful authority Police do not have power to arrest for questioning or facilitating an investigation. At common law police had no authority to stop the vehicle.
My jury duty there at the time was interesting .
Seriously breath taking and very busy every day..
After the initial hearing after contesting a fine and pleading not guilty I was given no further information for my next court date only to receive a letter with a fine amount. I was told it was on me to work out when my next court date was. There was no communication from the court. Ridiculous.
excelent experience, everyone of the staff try to help you with many ways of information depend of your situation, thanks to everyone for make the difficult moments easy with your help and advices, everything clean and perfect.
Anyone who follows me on Twitter would know I have a lot to say about the justice system and how badly I have been treated, but my experience at VoCAT at the Melbourne Magistrates Court was really cruel. I've attended this court on many occasions so I can say my review is as fair as it gets. I had to attend because I had to represent myself to get intervention orders and to apply for compensation at VoCAT, which is part of the Melbourne Magistrates Court. One of my neighbours threw a punch at me in the car park of the block of units I live in so that's why I took out an intervention order he went on to do lots of other stuff. Anyway, it was my experience at VoCAT which was most disturbing- the judge treated me with utter contempt- even turning his head away when I held up photographic evidence, and I was in court for a whole day 10 AM to around 3.30 PM, also my daughter was in the court room with me and the judge and respondent's lawyer had no hesitation being rude to me in front of her. My VoCAT hearing was on the 07/05/2018 and I would like everyone to see what happened to me. These hearings are recorded so feel free to go down to the Melbourne Magistrates Court and ask for a copy of the video- I would challenge anyone to argue against my claim that the way I was treated by the judge and respondent's lawyer was arrogant, cold and cruel.
Twice sent a summon to attend court only to be told its moved to remote webex. The system that is meant to protect and be fair and protect is not doing the right thing by playing fair. Massive thumbs down
The only reason which really isn’t a reason I didn’t give my experience 5 stars was its a government department so how could the staff be so well informed and helpful?? Maybe I was lucky, but the Melbourne Magistrate Court staff ticked all the boxes for me in relation to efficiency and professional help.
Pleasant if you can say that
Comment on this business

Melbourne Magistrates' Court map

to add Melbourne Magistrates' Court map to your website;



Copyright 2024 | All rights reserved.

You can use our top contact for adding and editing your business's contact details.
0.0025 Loaded in seconds

We use cookies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our website, to show you personalized content and targeted ads, to analyze our website traffic, and to understand where our visitors are coming from. Privacy Policy