Neutral Citation No:  NICA 17
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
The Appellant's prosecution and convictions
(a) On 11 July 2016: obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty, occurring on 21 April 2016.
(b) On 7 June 2017: failing to provide a specimen of breath and obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty, both occurring on 01 December 2017.
Challenging his convictions
(a) First, the documentary materials which he has provided include a Notice of Appeal to the County Court, dated 24 July 2017. This challenges his convictions in respect of the breath test refusal offence and one of the obstruction offences (which being unclear). While this Court does not know what became of this appeal, we shall assume that, for whatever reason, it brought about no alteration in the Appellant's convictions or sentences.
(b) Certain incomplete transcripts of hearing included among the Appellant's documentary materials are indicative of a judicial review challenge. While there is no indication of its fate we shall assume that this challenge was dismissed.
(c) Thirdly, there is the instant case stated challenge.
"Now I, being of the opinion that the application .. is frivolous, hereby certify that such application is refused."
The "application" was contained in Form 101, signed by the Appellant and dated 24 July 2017. This Court will make a further assumption in the Appellant's favour namely that the application embraced all three convictions and sentences.
 The test which we apply is whether there is an arguable case that either of the other two convictions and sentences is erroneous in law. We have identified in  and  above our understanding of the main contentions which the Appellant has at all stages advanced. These are precisely the kind of imaginative arguments typical of unrepresented litigants. Arrests, charges and summary prosecutions of this kind are governed by a series of familiar statutory requirements. The Appellant can point to no arguable breach of any of these. Having considered the relevant statutory provisions we are satisfied that these arguments are devoid of substance.
"Trespass on my [property] common law right to travel at common law ..
No evidence of subject matter jurisdiction …
Error of law: definition of travelling, mistakenly defined as driver …
Conflict of interest: as Plaintiff, prosecutor, clerk, witnesses all work for the same party – the Crown ..
Constructive trust fraud ..
Unlawful change of plea to not guilty ..
Personage and barratry …."