474.17 Criminal Code Act 1995

NSW Supreme Court tries to cover-up the significant errors in MONIS V THE QUEEN HCA 2013

S474.17 has been modified and misapplied in the Courts  due to the erroneous High Court case of Monis V the Queen HCA 2013 which resulted in a seize where 3 people were killed including Monis himself.

Monis V the Queen was  split in the High Court on the validity of S471.12 Criminal Code Act 1995.

6 Justices of the High Court ALL FAILED to identify that the statute  had been modified and was  missing it's first line. This demonstrates the complete failure of these 6 Justices.

Susan Kiefel who is now the Chief Justice of the High Court found S471.12 to be valid  against the constitution regardless that the statute had been modified and was incomplete………..This demonstrates that this Justice is nothing but incompetent!!!!!!!!!!

The  matter  on validity has now gone back to the High Court and the following is the application for special leave.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA  

Sydney REGISTRY                                                                                                                            No.       S24 of 2017__

BETWEEN:                                                                                                                                          Fiona Stewart Brown

                                                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                                                                                                                                 And           

                                                                                                            Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution

                                                                                                    First    Respondent               

                                                               District  Court of New South Wales

                                                                                                 Second   Respondent

APPLICATION FOR  SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL

The applicant applies for special leave or special  leave  to appeal from  whole of the judgment of the NSW Supreme Court given on 5^th December 2016

Part I:

Proposed Grounds

1   The Supreme Court erred there was no Judicial error in the Judgment  because all dicta is  binding precedent  in the High Court on the split  decision  of [Monis V the Queen] HCA 2013 and all lower Courts must follow.

2  The statute of S471.12 set out in [R V Monis] NSW CCA 2011 at [3] and [Monis V the Queen]HCA  2013 at [5] and [252] is not the legislation as set out in the Criminal Code Act 1995

3  [Monis V the Queen] HCA 2013 and [R V Monis] NSW CCA 2011 are not binding precedents for the statutes of S474.17 and S471.12 Criminal code  1995  because the legislation  as  applied in Monis by 10 Judges from the District Court through  to the High Court   was not the  statute  as set out in the Criminal Code Act  1995.

4   The Justices of the  NSW Supreme Court   failed to identify that  in order for a precedent to be binding  the material facts must be the same or similar.

5…The Constitution does not give the power to a Judge or Court to modify a  Criminal

statute  before applying it to basic statutory  interpretation technique.

6   The High Court case of [Monis V the Queen] was split in the High Court. There was no agreement of the majority and therefore no ratio decidendi. Under S23 Judicial Act 1903  decision  of the  lower Court stands. In the case of Original Jurisdiction of the High Court the decision of Justice French stands.

7  The construction of “offensive” as applied in the NSW CCA [R V Monis] 2011 fails a criminal standard for the purpose of S474.17 or S471.12 criminal Code Act and has been construed according to  a “Public Order Offence”.

8  The three  Justices  of the NSW  Supreme Court fabricated that Justice French, Chief Justice of the High Court supported the  construction of “offensive”   for the purpose of S471.12  according to the NSW CCA [ R V Monis] 2011.

9   Hulme and Barrett of the  NSW Supreme Court also  fabricated that Justice Hayne of the High Court of Australia also supported the construction of “offensive” for the purpose of S471.12  according to [R V Monis]  NSW  2011.

10.. The first   Constitutional question in [R V Monis] CCA 2011 is whether S471.12 is… “reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a  legitimate end compatible with maintenance of  the system of government prescribed by the Constitution” This should be answered in the negative.  The High Court has defined this test in [McCloy V NSW] 2015 HCA at [2].   The modified statute of S471.12  as applied in Monis  fails all the required tests.

11  The NSW Supreme Court erred that  the submissions of the Commonwealth and Victorian Attorney General to  the High Court [Monis V the Queen]HCA 2013 on the elements of the offence are a “binding precedent “ and all lower Courts must follow.

12.. The submissions of the Victorian and Commonwealth Attorney Generals  of the elements of the offence of S471.12   in their application breach the General Principals of Criminal responsibility which apply to all Commonwealth offences.

13  The NSW Supreme Court erred that the first line of the statute of S474.17 and S471.12  Criminal Code Act 1995   is a “title” and does not form part of the statute. There are no grounds to support this and demonstrates another fabrication of  NSW Supreme Court Justices trying to protect significant failures by senior Judges.

14 .. Every Court  failed to identify S474.17 and S471.12 contains a subjective and objective test.

15  All Courts failed to identify the physical elements of the offence of S474.17 due to the fundamental error  of  considering the submissions to the High Court  of the Victorian & Commonwealth Attorney General form a binding precedent.

16    The Magistrate of the Local Court failed to direct the Crown to  discharge its onus of proof of the fault element of ‘Recklessness’ which is attached to the second physical element of the offence

17   The Magistrate and Judges all erred that S474.17 and S471.12  could be treated the same because of the identical wording. Parliament broadened the definition of ‘Carriage service’ in 2004  to include the internet so therefore  S474.17 is subject to the Publication Film & computer Games Act and the Australian Broadcasting Act where S471.12 is not.

18  The NSW  Supreme Court erred on   the Classification  standards of S473.4 which apply  to online content and are subject to schedule 7 Australian Broadcasting Act 1992.

19    The Justices of the Supreme Court failed to identify  the 4 categories of the Publication Film and Computer Games Act  1995 are Unrestricted, Restricted 1, Restricted 2 and RC or Refused Classification  or ‘Offensive’.

20   The  Magistrate, Judge or the NSW Supreme Court  all failed to  identify the relevant  purpose of S473.4 because they  failed to identify parliament no longer  defines a        ‘Carriage and Postal’ service equally.

21.. The first error of the Judge in the District Court in the Appeal was she failed to identify S474.17 as it is set out in the Criminal Code Act and applied  the modified legislation. A Judge does not have the power to modify a Criminal statute  and  is not bound by these  significant  errors in Monis to do so [R V Fiona Stewart Brown]DC 2015 at 14.

22..  The NSW  Supreme Court Justices  erred that the first line of the statute of s474.17 is the ‘title’ of the legislation and does not form  part the offence and therefore is irrelevant. This flies in the face of Acts interpretation Act S12 and  breaches statutory construction techniques in general. This is a significant error by Supreme Court Justices  who are clearly attempting to protect serious Judicial errors in many Courts by many Judges.S471.12  and S474.17  contain 2 tests on is subjective and one is objective.

 23     The Justices of the  NSW Supreme Court erred there was a majority in the High Court [Monis V the Queen] HCA 2013 which

 supported the construction of ‘Offensive’ according to the NSW CCA in Monis as “calculated or likely to arouse significant  anger resentment  outrage or disgust in the mind of a reasonable person in all circumstances” This is complete fiction and demonstrates that these  Justices of the NSW Supreme  will go to extraordinary lengths to  protect significant and fundamental Judicial errors.

24   No Judge is bound by  a higher Courts decision if it can be shown to be fundamentally OR plainly wrong. In a joint decision Gleeson, Gummrow Callinan Heydon and Crennan  [Farah V Say Dee] 2007 HCA [135] “intermediate appellate courts and trial Judges in Australia should not depart  from decisions in Commonwealth legislation or uniform National legislation unless they are  convinced the interpretation is plainly wrong” The NSW  Supreme Court were told many times of the errors  in Monis

25   If Monis is shown to be fundamentally  wrong then the judgment of [R V PM] ACT SC  2009 is the binding precedent for S474.17 Criminal Code Act 1995.

Orders Sought

Any order that compliance with   the time limit for  filing be extended

That the conviction be quashed or

That the matter  be sent back to the local Court and re-tried according to the correct context of S474.17 Criminal Code Act and in compliance  with the General Principals of Criminal Responsibility which apply to all Commonwealth Offences.

That all costs be paid.

Part II:

Special Leave questions said to arise.

Constitutional  Law

1  Whether the modified S474.17  Criminal Code[R V Fiona Stewart Brown] 2015 DC[R V Monis] NSW CCA 2011 [Monis V the Queen]HCA 2013   is  reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a  legitimate end compatible with the  maintenance of system of government prescribed by the Constitution according to the relevant tests in [McCloy V NSW] HCA 2015 which supersedes  Lange

2  Does the Commonwealth Constitution  give the power  to a Magistrate  or a Judge  to modify  a Criminal statute  before  interpreting or constructing it according to Criminal Law?

3  Does the Commonwealth Constitution give the Power to the Chief Justice of NSW, Justice Bathurst, to modify   s471.12 [R V Monis] before  applying basic statutory construction or interpretation  to the legislation?

4  Does the Commonwealth Constitution give the Chief Justice of NSW the power  to dispense  of a criminal standard  for the purpose of S471.12 [R V Monis] NSW CCA 2011

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

. Original Jurisdiction of High Court

5    What is the correct text  of S474.17  or S471.12 Criminal Code Act 1995?

6    What is the statutory construction of S474.17  Criminal Code Act 1995?

7    What are the physical elements which create the offence of S474.17 Criminal Code Act 1995?

8 What physical element of the offence of S474.17  Criminal Code Act  does the fault element of Recklessness apply?

9    What is the   Criminal standard of ‘Offence’ which must be caused for the purpose of S471.12 or S474.17 Criminal Code?

10 What is the classification  of “offensive” for the purpose of S473.4?

11   What is the Statutory interpretation of S23 Judicial Act  to be applied  for Monis or the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in  respect to a 3-3 split?

 Other Significant questions

12    Did the Chief Justice of the High Court Justice French support the construction of ‘Offensive’ according to the NSW CCA[R V Monis] 2011?

13   Did Justice Hayne of the High Court support the construction of ‘Offensive’ according to Justice Bathurst  in [R V Monis] NSW CCA 2011?

14    Does a 3-3 split in the High Court form a binding precedent?

15      When is a higher court not considered a binding precedent?

16      What  constitutes a binding Precedent?

17    What is a persuasive precedent?

18     The High Court Judgment of [Monis V the Queen] HCA is binding in no Court because it was split. The NSW CCA[R V Monis] is shown to be plainly wrong. What is the binding precedent for S474.17 Criminal Code Act?

19     As the original Jurisdiction of the High Court  under the Constitution  this falls to the High Court to correct this uncertainty.

Part III:

Why Leave should be granted.

  It is not in the interest of Justice for the High Court to   continue to allow Magistrates and Judges to misapply  the application of Criminal law  according to S471.12 and S474.17 Criminal Code Act 1995.. It is therefore necessary for the High Court to give guidance  so this practice ends and gives certainty in the statute  so the rule of law does not vary.

The High Court Judgment of [Monis V the Queen] 2013 was split in the High Court 3Three High Court Justices found it valid and three High Court  Justices found it invalid. No Justice was able to identify what the real error was. The statute [R V Monis] DC 2011 at [3] [R V Monis] NSW CCA at [3] and [Monis V the Queen] HCA 2013 at [5] is not the statute of S471.12 as set out in the Criminal Code Act 1995 at all. The legislation has been modified and not the legislation which was passed by Parliament. A court or a Judge does not have the power to modify  Criminal legislation under the Commonwealth  Constitution.

 The NSW Supreme Court has been told this many times. The Justices of the  NSW Supreme Court have tried to protect this fundamental error in basic statutory construction and found that the first line of the statute is the “Title” of the legislation and not part of the legislitive drafting. It is not the function of the Supreme Court of NSW  to protect significant errors in the Judicial  system. In the  High Court Judgment of  [Alcan V Commissioner of  Territory Revenue] at 47 Justices Hayne  Heydon ,  Crennan  and Kiefel… “this court has said on  many  occasions  that the task of statutory construction  must begin  with a consideration of the text itself” The NSW Supreme Court was also told on many occasions of this error of all Courts in Monis but it is clear that this Judicial error  was  considered so substantial  the Justices have attempted to cover this up.

In the High Court  Judgment  [Farah V Say Dee] HCA 2009 at [135] Justice Gleeson, Gummrow Callinan Heydon and Crennan said…” Intermediate appellate courts and trial Judges in Australia  should not depart from decisions in intermediate  courts in  another Jurisdiction  on the interpretation of Commonwealth Legislation or uniform national legislation   unless they are convinced that the interpretation is plainly wrong”

  It can not only be shown that the   statute of S471.12’s interpretation or statutory construction is fundamentally wrong and has not been   constructed according to basic statutory construction techniques , it can  also be shown in the  three Judgments of Monis that the statute being applied is not as it is set out in the Criminal Code Act  and in its application breaches Chapter 2  General Principals of Criminal Responsibility  Criminal Code Act.

 The High Court has said  that dicta is not a binding precedent and correctly, dicta uttered in the High Court does not form a binding precedent. At the very best it could be  considered persuasive.

 It therefore should concern the High Court of Australia  that it has now become common practice   for courts and Judges to  consider that errors in the High Court  [Monis] are being applied in lower Courts as binding precedents.

 No Judge in a lower Court  is bound  by the High Court to  misapply  the correct text of S471.12  Criminal Code 1995  and no Judge  should find that the submissions to the High Court in Monis by the Commonwealth and Victorian Attorney Generals on the alleged elements of the offence  a binding precedent. In their application, the submissions of the Attorney Generals breach Division 3.2 ,5.4, 13.1 and 13.2 Criminal Code Act.

Similarly,  the Judgment of [ R V Monis] in the NSW CCA is fundamentally flawed. Three Justices  of the NSW CCA  all failed to identify that the statute  of 471.12 was not the statute as set out in the Criminal Code Act and therefore the test on constitutional validity of a modified statute  was also significantly flawed.. The relevant test as applied in Lange HCA 1997 and now superseded by   [McCloy V NSW]HCA 2015 involves 2 tests. The first is on compatibility  and the second is on proportionality.

 The test on compatibility  first asks what is the purpose of the legislation and  how  does it  serve a legitimate end.    The NSW CCA[R V Monis] 2011 found the purpose of the law was   to protect people from being subjected to offensive material in the post and Bathurst, Allsop and  McClelland found it achieves this legitimate or legal end by the application of the test which  was applicable   in the Police Offences Act 1928 S25  or “calculated or likely to arouse significant  anger resentment  outrage or disgust in the mind of a reasonable person in all circumstances” . Justice French, Hayne and Haydon of the High Court  were all correct to find this is not a legitimate end for the purpose of S471.12

 The NSW Supreme  Court found that the first line of the legislation is the “title’ and not part of legislative drafting. This flies in the face of Acts interpretation Act 1901  S12. A statute has no introductory words and no ”title”.

 Clearly, it can be shown that the  statute that Justice Bathurst, Allsop and McClelland found to be valid against the Constitution is  not valid at all.  The text has been modified and therefore is invalid. The High Court of Australia, now being aware of the significant errors must intervene.

 The Construction of “offensive” in the NSW CCA[R V Monis] 2011  fails a criminal standard for the purpose of S471.12. Justice Bathurst has applied the construction of “ offensive’ according to the  Worchester V Smith 1951[S25] Police Offences Act 1928 This is a Public Order Offence. To be ‘Offensive’ within the meaning of this Act it first must be in a public place and second it must cause a violation of Public Order or a Breach of the Peace.  The NSW CCA[R V Monis] 2011 found that the construction of “Offensive” for the purpose of S471.12 is “calculated or likely to arouse significant  anger resentment  outrage or disgust in the mind of a reasonable person in all circumstances”

 This is plainly  and erroneously wrong. The NSW Supreme Court was told  both in oral and  written submissions of this error. To protect these errors in the NSW CCA[Monis] the Justices of the supreme Court found there was a majority in the High Court[Monis V the Queen ] supported this construction  for the purpose of S471.12. There is no evidence  or grounds in the High Court to  make such a  Judgment. All NSW Supreme Court  Justices found the Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice  French supported the construction for the purpose of S471.12. This is clear fabrication.

 Justice Hulme and Barrett also found that Justice Hayne of the High Court supported this construction  of ”offensive”  for the purpose of S471.12 Criminal Code Act. This also is fabrication and there are no ground to support such a decision Justice French or Hayne  supported such a decision.

 It is not in the interest of Justice for the High Court to allow the supreme Court of NSW to fabricate  decisions of  the High Court of Australia.

 It can be clearly shown  of the errors in Monis and  therefore according to the HCA Judgment of Farah V Say Dee no lower court is bound by fundamental errors.

It is paramount that that the High Court  overrule the  significant errors in Monis  which  many, many Judges have failed to act  upon.

 The Justices of the Supreme Court erred that  S471.12 and S474.17  are  worded identical and so the same elements would apply.

 This is incorrect. In 2004 Parliament broadened  the  term “Carriage service” to include the internet. “Carriage service” is defined identically in the Telecommunications Act and the Australian Broadcasting Act.1992. Prohibited or illegal online content is subject to the Publication, Film and Computer Games Act 1995 ,S471.12 or a postal service or similar  is not. This is the main difference that distinguishes S471.12 from S474.17.

 The NSW Supreme Court has been told many times of this. They have made a Judgment that  these two offences must be treated identically. This is incorrect. The High Court must correct this error. It is not in the interest of Justice for the High Court to allow an error of law to continue to be repeated over and over again.

 If [Monis V the Queen] HCA and [RV Monis] NSW CCA are shown to be completely and fundamentally wrong [R V RM] ACT SC 2009 would be the binding precedent. There cannot  be two binding precedent in 2 different states in Australia on Commonwealth legislation. The definition of a “carriage service”. is clearly defined in the Telecommunication Act  and the Australian Broadcasting Act 1995  and differs  from  the definitions of a “Postal Service or similar” in S471.12.

 Under S35 Judiciary Act 1903 The High Court in considering an application  for leave to the High Court   should take into consideration. This  application  involves  both questions on  Constitutional Law ,  Criminal  law and interpretation. It shows why the NSW CCA and three  Justices of the High Court in Monis  were clearly wrong. There is nothing ambiguous about S471.12 which would make it necessary to read the  legislation down . It is simply that Kiefell  Crennan and Bell   from the High Court  all failed to read the statute in correct context.

Part IV:

Reasons why costs should not be made against me.

The application before the court of appeal was of critical public importance to identify and delineate  the obscure conflicting and lack of clarity in the law in respect  of provision S471.12 Criminal Code Act  arising out of the split decision  in Monis V the Queen. Therefore, any case  which its dominant purpose  is for certainty of law and  the administration of Justice , the costs of such an   application  to the Court should not be borne  by members of the Community  and the costs of any such litigation  should be paid by the Crown.

The Magistrate of the local Court, the Judge of the District Court and the three Justices of the NSW Supreme Court  failed to take an independent assessment of S474.17 to determine its validity on its own 2 feet and in error dismissed the appeal on the basis  that the interpretation according to [R V Monis]CCA 2011 and [Monis V The Queen]HCA 2013 was correct.

 Part V:

List of Authorities

1  [Farah V Say Dee]  HCA 2007  at 135

2  [R V Fiona Stewart Brown]Local Court 2014 P[1] at 20,25,30,35 P[5] at 15

3  [R V Fiona Stewart Brown]District Court. 2015 at 14

4  [R V Fiona Steawart Brown]2016  NSW Supreme Court 2016 at 5,6,8,9,,10,14,15,20,21.28.32,33,34,35,

6  [Monis V the Queen]  HCA 2013 at 5,13,14,58,59,90,91,94, 252

7    [R V Monis ] NSW CCA at 3,59,61 64 66

8   Lange V the Australian Broadcasting Commission HCA 1997 at 68 69

9  [Alcan Alumina V Commissioner of Territory Revenue] HCA2009 at 47

10  [ Garcia V National Australia Bank]HCA 1997 at 56,59

11  Federation Insurance LTD V Wasson and others  HCA 1987at 17

12  Dickenson’s  Arcade  PTY LTD V Tasmania HCA 1974 at13

13   [Raymond McCloy and ors V  NSW] HCA at 2

14  Worchester V Smith Victorian Supreme Court 1951 P318

15  ExParte Breen  1918 NSW Supreme Court

16  Wragge V Pritchard NSW Supreme Court  1930  P 280

17  Ledrum V Cambell   NSW Supreme Court 1932 P500, 501,503

18   Ball V McIntyre ACT SC 1966

19  Inglis V Fish  Victorian Supreme Court 1961

20  Scott V Howard and Parkinson  Victorian Supreme Court 1912

21  McCauley V McGovern 1903

 22   Refuge Review Tribunal Exparte Aala 200 [141]

23  Scott V DPP 200 at 20-21

24  Quinn V Director of Public Prosecution [2015] at 6

25  Mulder V DPP NSW CCA at 35

Part VI:

Constitutional Provisions and statutes

 See Annexure marked  “A”

Dated

                                                                                                                                                          .................................

                                                                                                                                              [Applicant or the legal practitioner

                                                                                                                                                     representing the applicant]

To:                   The Respondent  ( Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)
Level 10 /175 Liverpool st  Sydney

TAKE NOTICE:   Before taking any step in the proceedings you must, within 14 DAYS after service of this application, enter an appearance in the office of the Registry in which the application is filed, and serve a copy on the applicant.

The Applicant’s address for service is:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

fionabrown01@hotmail.com

Annexure marked “A”

Constitutional Provisions and statutes

Constitutional Provisions and Statutes

1 Judicial Act 1903 S23

2  Summary offences Act 1988 S4A NSW

3  Summary offences Act SA 1958  S7

4  Publication Film and Computer Games Act  1995  S22CA

5 Publication Film and Computer Games Act 1995  S3A,5,7,9, S11, 12

6 Australian Broadcasting Act 1992 Definitions Schedule 5&7

7 Police offences Act 1908 S8A

8 Police offences Act 1928 S25

9 Section 35A Judiciary Act 1903

10 S474.17  Criminal Code Act 1995

11S471.12  Criminal Code Act 1995

12  S471.12  Criminal Code Act 1995

13 . Acts interpretation Act 1901 S12

14 Commonwealth Constitution Act  1901 S51

15  Commonwealth Constitution Act   1901 s75

16 Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 S76

17  Police Offences Act 1958 S27

18  Police Offences Ordinance  1930-1961 Act  S17

19  Police Offences Act   S7

20  Post and Telegraph Act 1901  Interpretation of terms P2

21  Chapter 2 Division 3.2 ,4,1 13.1 and 13.2Criminal Code Act 1995

22  "Carriage service" is defined in  S7 Australian Broadcasting Act 1995  and identically in the   Telecommunications Act1997

23  Telecommunications Act 1997 which defines  “carriage service” as a  service for carrying communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy.

24  “postal service or similar’ means (a) a postal service within the meaning of S51(v)  Constitution or;(b) a courier service, to the extent  to which the postal or like service  within the meaning of S51 Constitution or (c ) a package or carrying service  like within the meaning of S51 Constitution or (d)any other service that  is a postal or other like service  or(e ) a courier service that is provided by a constitutional  corporation  or   (f) a package  or parcel carrying service that is provided by a constitutional corporation etc. Definitions Criminal Code Act 1995

Definitions under schedule7 Australian Broadcasting Act 1992

25  “Classification Board” means the classification board established by the Publication, film and Computer Games Act 1995

26  “Classified” means classified under this schedule

27  “Context” means within the form of text or in the form of data or in the form of speech music or  other sounds or in the form of visual image or any  other combination of forms.

28  “Content Service” means a service that delivers content to a person having equipment appropriate for receiving the content of a service that allows end users  to access  content using a carriage service.

29  “ prohibited content” has the meaning given by Clause 20  Schedule 7 Australian Broadcasting Act 1992 Part 2 Classification of Content;; Division 1 Prohibited content and  potential prohibited content 20 Prohibited content;;content other than eligible electronic publications;; for the purpose of this schedule , is prohibited content  if (a) the content  has been classified  RC or  X 18+ by the Classifications board  or  

(2) For the purpose of this schedule, content that consists of an eligible electronic publication is prohibited content if the content has been classified RC , category 2 or restricted category 1 by the Classification Board

“internet content” has the same meaning as in schedule 5 Broadcasting Act 1992

“potential prohibited content” has the same meaning as in schedule 7 Broadcasting Act 1992

30. “potential prohibited  content” has the same meaning within schedule 7

31   “content service” has the same meaning  as in the Telecommunications Act 1997

32   Guidelines for the Classifications of Publications2005

ACMA international training program  2011 Online content   

33   Macquarie dictionary  Third add 1997at  P1776 meaning Reasonable/ Reasonably

34  .. Macquarie dictionary  Third add 1997 at P1227meaningof legitimate

35.. Macquarie dictionary  Third add 1997 at P22 meaning of Adapt/ adapted

36Macquarie dictionary  Third add 1997at P97meaning of appropriate

37   Macquarie dictionary  Third add 1997at P448 meaning of compatible

Macquarie dictionary  Third add 1997at P15 meaning of  achieve

 38     Crimes Legislation  Amendment ( Telecommunication Offences and other   Measures) Bill 2004