by Ross Irby
DENTIST Michael Frey is strongly contesting a charge by Bundaberg police that he rode his bicycle with no helmet in McLean St.
And the indignant 66-year-old is prepared to go to the Supreme Court over the traffic infringement whose validity he is challenging as well as being heard by one magistrate.
Charged with being a bicycle rider not wearing an approved helmet at 8.40am on December 20, Frey went before Bundaberg magistrate Belinda Merrin before demanding to know her name and question if she was a magistrate.
"I'm confused. I don't really understand the charge. I'm exercising my right riding a bicycle down the street," Frey said.
He said he had asked some "discovery questions" of police and the court that had gone unanswered.
"It's proceeding in secret... like a star chamber proceeding," Frey said.
"I want these answers as I can't provide a meaningful defence. It's my common law right to travel on my bike."
Ms Merrin told him she would not be striking out the charge, saying his arguments could be made a defended hearing if he was contesting the matter.
"I don't know who you are. If you are a magistrate. I know nothing about you," Frey said to Ms Merirn.
Watched by his wife Monica, seated in the public gallery, Frey made an application that his matter be heard by two magistrates and before "a competent" court. The American-born resident said he did not want to be tricked or give the court any money for exercising his rights.
"I'm a flesh an blood living man with God-given rights," Frey said.
"I'm exercising my rights. Unless you can produce a victim I've broken no law."
Frey referred to various legislation and referred to the magistrates court as being like a 17th century "star chamber" and said he would not consent to the legal jurisdiction with one magistrate hearing his case.
"I won't consent to that jurisdiction. I do not consent. I will not," Frey said.
Ms Merrin also had to tell him to "be quiet Mr Frey I'm talking, I've given you the opportunity to speak".
"I reject his argument that this court is not a competent jurisdiction," Ms Merrin said.
"It is properly before this court and it is a competent jurisdiction."
Ms Merrin said Frey could seek a review in the Supreme Court - he replied that this was his intention.
The matter was adjourned.