McGrath v. Baustralia (Rex)

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to: navigation, search
McGrath v. Baustralia (Rex)
Coat of arms of the Supreme Court of Baustralia.svg
Hearing: April 12, 2020 (2020-04-12)
Decided: April 12, 2020 (2020-04-12)
Full case nameAidan John McGrath versus Baustralia, represented by His Majesty the King, to appeal the 'Persona Non Grata (McGrath) Act' for reasons of insufficient justification
CitationsMcGrath v. Baustralia (Rex), 3 John 1, vol. 1, p. 1 SCB
Court Membership
JudgeThe Rt. Hon. Lord Jenkinson

McGrath v. Baustralia (Rex) was a supreme court appeal. On 12 April 2020, the Parliament of Baustralia passed the Persona Non Grata (McGrath) Act stripping him of his military titles and medals and giving him two days to remove all belongings from Baustralia. In these two days, he also was given the option to appeal this matter in the Supreme Court. With the Act passing at 3:17 PM, he immediately requested an appeal. The matter commenced at 3:31 PM and was dismissed at 8:47 PM.


With Nick Sullivan taking office as Prime Minister, and ex officio Lord High Treasurer, he decided that the last solution to rid the Kingdom of McGrath, he introduced the Act. The second paragraph of the Act states that he was removed from the office of the Governor general of Fox Islands for homophobic remarks, referenced Rex v. McGrath, a former Supreme Court case where he had tried to diminish the name of Baustralia by giving him Kapreburg under false pretences, referenced the multiple attempts to force Premiership upon himself, that he is very insubordinate for an army major general, making bills only if it benefits him personally or his micronations, and had failed at being more active within Parliament.

Sullivan mentioned to some MPs that he has wasted the Treasury's time and resources too many times, and after punishment continues to do it. He mentioned that the King, John I, has kicked him out, demoted him, tried him for treason, but he still won't quit with his shenanigans. The Act passed Parliament with a vote of 10-1-2 (aye-nay-abstain).


The points of the Act that McGrath thought were not justified were, after being sorted out by the sitting judge, Lord Jenkinson, were:

  1. Claims made in the Act are outdated and solved.
  2. Act to punish McGrath for defecting from the Conservative Party introduced two days after his defection.
  3. The claimed lack of performance, only passing the League of Nations Act.
  4. Excessive attempts to become P.M.

Preliminary hearing

Lord Jenkinson first went over the points that McGrath thought were unjustified to ween out what can and can't be adjudicated on.

Point one

At 4:14 PM, he started with the first point, asking His Majesty the intents of the Government with this Act, to which he replied that the Lord High Treasurer was trying to conserve the Treasury's time and resources for the multiple elections and motions he's made concerning becoming Prime Minister. The King was then asked whether the claims were indeed outdated and solved, to which he replied "I do, your Lordship. That, however, was the intention, so that such things won't repeat."

Lord Jenkinson ruled at 4:36 PM that he declined to adjudicate and that the claims were meant to be outdated.

Point two

Lord Jenkinson then brought up the second point that it was meant to punish McGrath for defecting from the Conservative Party. His Majesty reported that the Act was written in the morning and the defection happened that afternoon. Although McGrath did tell the King he was planning to defect, this was never relayed to Sullivan.

Lord Jenkinson ruled at 4:41 PM that he declined to adjudicate, as Sullivan didn't know that he was planning on defecting and that the timing was coincidental.

Point three

Lord Jenkinson then brought up the third point about the lack of performance, and how he only passed the Handover of the League of Nations Act. McGrath stated that yes, although the Act did benefit Paloma, it wasn't meant as an insult to the Kingdom. McGrath then mentioned that he did motion an Act to form an intelligence unit in the Baustralian Armed Forces that can see all Kingdom's Internal Secret Service (KISS) documents, and the KISS can see all Baustralian Armed Forces (BAF) documents, including confidential ones. It failed to pass a vote in the Commons. He also mentioned an Act to change the wordmarks from the former Shield, Circlet, and Crown design to a full armorial achievement, which did pass a vote.

The King mentioned that the Wordmark Act was drafted by His Majesty, and not by McGrath, claiming that Aidan had other things to do. He also mentioned that the Bill relating to the KISS was so that he can view BAF documents to see if the BAF was creating an operation against Paloma.

McGrath claimed that this was due to a joke that the King took to far called 1984. He admitted that the Act was partially intended for personal benefit, claiming "it was really to make sure I was not going mad, my Lord."

At 5:12 PM, Lord Jenkinson ruled judgement for the defendant, and that all the Bills and Acts he has ever put through Parliament seem to be benefiting himself, in a "personal, diplomatic, territorial, or mental way."

Point four

Lord Jenkinson brought up the final point, that McGrath was excessively trying to become Prime Minister. McGrath was asked for a comment to which he said it was democratic and legal. Lord Jenkinson agreed and said it democratic and legal, and at 5:20 PM, ruled judgement for the litigant.

Point five

The King brought up a point at the end of the preliminary hearing referencing paragraph 2.2 of the Persona Non Grata (McGrath) Act (PNG Act), reminding that McGrath "intentionally caused the Kapresh constitutional crisis [to] diminish the crown," stating that the land gift looked legal to the Kingdom but was actually given under false pretences.

Lord Jenkinson ruled at 5:26 PM that he declined to adjudicate and that the Crown had already dealt with that issue. He called for a recess until 8:00 PM.

Main hearing and dismissal

At 7:40 PM, the Crown and McGrath were both able to start the main hearing early, he mentioned that the Acts and Bills McGrath had introduced were for his benefit. He stated:

The bills and Acts you've drafted do seem to be benefiting you personally, or for your interests only.

3 John 1 c. 35, you requested the Baustralian government to give up its right on the dissolved League, because you wanted to reform it under Paloman administration.

3 John 1 c. 36, you wanted to use the full coat of arms on the KISS word mark, rather than the old shield of arms, crown and circlet design. Because of uniformity, you decided to change them all.

Bill C32, you wanted to see if '1984' was real or not, and after His Majesty the King said that the military was planning something related to this '1984', you wanted to see it, but it was confidential. So, you wanted to create some sort of a coalition between the BAF and the KISS. I know, however, that you wanted to create a MI6-like unit as well, but the 1984 bit was what we are looking at, not the MI6-like unit.

He also decided to change his ruling on point 4 saying that it was a problem of ethics, not legality. After a back-and-forth with McGrath, McGrath stated that "either good or bad" his Acts were meant for personal benefit.

The points in the case ended up as such:

1. Claims made in the Act are outdated and solved. Declined to adjudicate. The claims were meant to be outdated. They were used as examples.
2. Act to punish McGrath for defecting from the Conservative Party introduced two days after his defection. Declined to adjudicate, the Act was not drafted after this defection, rather before, and as [Sullivan] knew not that he was planning on defecting, [Sullivan] couldn't have known to use this as punishment.
3. The claimed lack of performance, only passing the League of Nations Act. Judgement for the defendant, while there were more bills and Acts, they all seem to be benefiting McGrath the most, in a personal, diplomatic, territorial, or mental way.
4. Excessive attempts to become P.M. Declined to adjudicate. Problem of ethics, not legality.
5. Kapresh crisis Declined to adjudicate, already dealt with.

As the judgement was for the defendant, Lord Jenkinson, at 8:47 PM, decided to dismiss the matter, and McGrath was told that the Act will remain in force.