By Cam Lucadou-Wells
A CLYDE man charged with assaulting an emergency worker after police were called out to his property by RSPCA inspectors in April has told a court he will apply to the Supreme Court to subpoena material from the police.
During the failed subpoena bid in Dandenong Magistrates’ Court, Tony Bruce Cottle told Magistrate Jack Vandersteen that he didn’t accept the decision – nor an earlier rejection by Magistrate Barry Schulz.
“I have no confidence in your decisions. I will be appealing your decision.
“They way the police is operating, they don’t have to provide evidence for the basis of their authority to charge me.”
At the 3 October hearing, Mr Cottle declared police were public servants delegated authority that was conferred upon them by the Crown.
If they couldn’t provide that deferred authority, they couldn’t charge him, he argued.
Mr Vandersteen said the alleged assault of police occurred after RSPCA officers arrived to inspect a reportedly unwell horse at Mr Cottle’s Manks Road property on 1 April.
After police were called, a police officer was allegedly assaulted and/or resisted by Mr Cottle – both indictable offences under protection of “emergency workers” legislation.
During the supboena hearing, Mr Cottle expressed doubt over whether the police officer was legitimately defined as an emergency worker.
Mr Cottle’s 16-item subpoena bid included a copy of a police manual for use of police officers and emergency workers – an item that police prosecutor Leading Senior Constable Gary van der Poel said didn’t exist.
He also requested a document proving the police officer was a competent emergency worker signed by the relevant State minister, or that she had been appointed by the minister as an emergency worker.
Mr Cottle also requested for contact details for the authority that declared the 1 April incident an emergency, a victim impact statement for the police officer as well as recordings of conversations in the police car before and during Mr Cottle’s transfer to Narre Warren police station that day.
Mr Vandersteen said he rejected Mr Cottle’s request because it served no legitimate forensic purpose, and was broad, irrelevant and oppressive.
At this point, Mr Cottle walked away from the bar table and sat in the gallery.
Mr Cottle had been provided with a police record-of-interview and all material required under the Criminal Procedures Act, Mr Vandersteen said.
The magistrate then asked Mr Cottle if he consented to the Magistrates’ Court – or a higher court – hearing the charges.
Mr Cottle said he had not finished with the Magistrates’ Court, and would immediately apply for a review of Mr Vandersteen and Mr Schulz’s decisions.
Mr Vandersteen said Mr Cottle would be greatly assisted if he was represented at the next court hearing.
“A lot of the worry and concern you feel may be abated if you consult with a criminal practitioner.”
The case was adjourned to Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 23 November.
