S474.17 Criminal Code 1995/ Letter to Judge Jefferys Downing Center Sydney
Re Interpretation of Offensive by the Supreme Court

 

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

fionabrown01@hotmail.com

26^th February 2015

Judge Jefferys

District Court

Downing Centre  Sydney

 

Re Question of Law

Standard of  “offensiveness” to constitute a criminal charge

Supreme Court NSW

 

Dear Judge Jefferys

I refer to my Appeal in the District Court and the several times I have appeared before you  in applications for fresh evidence.

This  was an appeal from the Local Court. The Magistrate was Lisa Stapleton.

The complete failure and total disregard of Stapleton to apply   the correct standards  in S474.17 Criminal Code 1995  can only  show how fundamentally flawed the  NSW Judicial system is. Stapleton clearly showed no regard to any Higher Court Judgments  in regard to S474.17

 Taking everything into consideration it clearly appears inappropriate for you to refer to her as a learned magistrate when you are  aware  of her  failure and abuse of power in her decisions in regard   to this.

I therefore  need  a determination of question of law  in the Supreme Court because  I cannot have faith in your decisions  and believe there is a conflict of interest  making you vulnerable to protecting  her atrocious conduct instead of exposing it.

 

S 474.17 states S474.17

using a carriage service to menace harass or cause offence

A/ A person is guilty of  an offence if:

the person uses a carriage service and;

 the person does so in a way(  whether by the method or the use of contents  of communication or both that reasonable persons would regard as being in all the circumstances, menacing , harassing or offensive

. You will be aware from experience that  Menacing or Harassing to be criminal must cause extreme fear or anxiety  in a person to constitute a criminal charge . Therefore    “ Offensive”  must  have a collective interpretation  along with menace and harass.  The High Court’s decision in Monis V the Queen enforces this interpretation. Stapleton admitted to have read Monis 7 or eight times. Both you and Stapleton have read  “Brett David Starkey” which is the decision handed down by the District Court of Queensland  that  to convict it must be of a severity  that  it caused the relevant apprehension  or fear for safety. Stapleton failed in everyway to take any of this decision  into consideration .

You are also particularly aware that in Monis V the Queen the High Court  found that the narrow meaning of “offensive’ must be use. Therefore ,S473  Criminal Code must also have the narrow interpretation  to be considered criminal.

I have included this section for your convenience so you will not have to go to the trouble of looking this up.

S473

 Determining whether material is offensive

The matters to be taken into account  for this part whether  reasonable persons would regard  particular material or particular use of use he standards of  morality of the carriage service as being in all the circumstance offensive include:

a) the standards  of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults and,

b/ the literary, artistic or educational merit( if any)  of the general character of the material, and

c/ the general character of the  material( including whether it is of a medical legal or scientific in character

Judge Jefferys, If you took the narrow meaning of morality then it would need to be immoral to find it offensive. The narrow meaning of decency would be indecency or something close and the propriety should also have a narrow interpretation  and although I reminded Stapleton that she should read my blogs in correct context as required by S473 on several occasions  Stapleton saw no RELEVANCE in this.

Taking into careful consideration  the required  legislation  of S473 there  leaves little room for error of what “offensive’  is to be  considered under S474.17.

Therefore in the interest of Justice and  also in the interest of transparency the Supreme Court needs to give the correct standard for “ offensive” to be criminal.

You are aware the fault element is “ recklessness’  Recklessness must cause something. You are aware that this must cause anxiety  and fearfulness for ones safety. You are clearly aware this standard has in no way been met. and you are aware that Stapleton has failed in her duty as a magistrate.

The Supreme Court has requested a copy of the “Stated Case” or  certificate of Judgment  for proper  determination as soon as possible.

Unfortunately as I must reiterate again it has come to a matter where I have no confidence in you.

I am sure you understand my point  taking everything into consideration  of your appeared support of Lisa Stappleton as a learned Magistrate

A  quick response would be appreciated.

Thanking you

Fiona Brown

Royal Commission investigates child abuse among GOD'S chosen people.
Clearly this demonstrate how out of toch these religious people are........

Jewish school tried to 'cure' sex offender

The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse began its second hearing in Melbourne on Monday, focusing on ultra-orthodox Jewish organisation Yeshivah.

PT1M45S620349

• .

Yeshivah Melbourne tried to "cure" serial sex offender David Cyprys and continued to employ him more than 20 years after victims reported he had sexually abused them, a Royal Commission has heard.
The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse began its second hearing in Melbourne on Monday, focusing on the ultra-orthodox Jewish organisation Yeshivah.
The two-week hearing at the County Court will examine Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi's response to child sexual abuse allegations against their former employees, convicted sex offenders David Cyprys, David Kramer and Daniel Hayman.

Manny Waks, who was a victim of David Samuel Cyprys, appeared before the Royal Commission. Photo: Penny Stephens

Cyprys was found guilty of indecent assault in 1992 and released on a good behaviour bond. In 2013, the County Court found him guilty of five charges of rape, five charges of indecent assault, attempted indecent assault, and two counts of gross indecency. He is still serving his eight-year prison sentence for these crimes.

Advertisement

One of Cyprys' victims, known as AVA, said he was sexually abused between the ages of 14 and 17, when he took private kung fu lessons from Cyprys.
"There is no doubt in my mind Yeshivah College and some of its rabbis were aware of David's penchant for young boys," he told the commission.

Manny Waks arrives at the County Court, Melbourne, where he's appearing at the Royal Commission into child abuse. Manny was abused while at Yeshivah College. Photo: Penny Stephens

His mother, known as AVQ, said she first reported her son's abuse in 1986 to the-then director of Yeshivah Centre, Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Groner.
Rabbi Groner, who died in 2008, responded, "Oh no, I thought we cured him," she said. Rabbi Groner assured her he would "take care of it. It will be fine".
About 2002, AVQ called the rabbi again when she learned that her son had continued to be abused by Cyprys years later. He asked her if AVA was going to the police, and she responded "probably".
"What do you need me for then?" he replied.
AVA said Cyprys should not have been allowed near children at Yeshivah until 2011: "I don't care how cured they thought he was."
Manny Waks, who was also abused by Cyprys, told the commission he had confronted Rabbi Groner in the 2000s about why Cyprys continued to be employed as a security guard at Yeshivah despite abuse allegations against him from 1996.
Rabbi Groner told Mr Waks, founder and former chief executive of Jewish victims' support group Tzedek, that he was "personally dealing with it" and that Cyprys was receiving professional help.
Mr Waks said he had confirmed that Rabbi Groner knew of Cyprys' offending as early as 1984. That year, a victim and the father of another victim relayed abuse allegations to him via another rabbi.
Other victims and their family members are also expected to give evidence they were ostracised by rabbinical leaders and the Jewish community after they reported abuse.
Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Maria Gerace, said in her opening address on Monday that witnesses would give evidence that Chabad communities - who strictly observe Orthodox Judaism - were "insular and set apart from the wider secular community".
"Witnesses are expected to give evidence that historically, there was no sex education whilst growing up and family members and members of the community did not openly discuss the issue of sex," she said.
"I anticipate witnesses will also give evidence that a person's standing in the community and community attitudes to a member can affect, positively or adversely, a member's prospect of marriage and economic opportunities."
The commission would also examine the role the religious concept mesirah, which prohibits Jewish people from handing over another Jew to a secular or non-Rabbinic authority. Mesirah developed in response to the historical persecution of Jews.
"The inquiry will examine whether the concept of mesirah has influenced the attitude of rabbinical leaders and community members in their treatment of victims of abuse who participate in the criminal process," she said.

Appeal to the Supreme Court NSW/ S 474.17 Criminal Code 1995

Interpretation of Offend!!!
Menace , Harass or Offended must have a collective meaning!!!!! Although Offend ( free speech) is not defined  menacing and harassing are. Look at the various state laws for harassing and menacing that are criminal which will be the guide for "offending"
To be found guilty of Menacing or Harassing   fear  anxiety  or apprehension must have been caused to an extent that would be diagnosed   by a medical professional.
Dodgy NSW magistrates are  not applying the correct tests   and are fucking everyone over.
The narrow interpretation also must be use for 'offensive"' as required by the High Court. As S 473 is also the test for offensiveness so the narrow test also applies.
The fault element is recklessness. Recklessness lies somewhere between intent and negligence. Recklessness must cause something......... so what does it cause...........

Its time to stop the shit in the court system and make the Supreme Court give a decision on "offensiveness '

What out for the dodgy NSW Magistrate Lisa Stapleton!!!!!



Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) is Use Carriage Service to Menace Harass or Cause Offence and is extracted below.

474.17Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a)the person uses a carriage service; and

(b)the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty:Imprisonment for 3 years."

 

Shonky Ian Lazar out on Bail

So Ian Lazar's barrister has admitted that Ian Lazar has mental issues....
Along with his father, the Sydney Rabbi David Ragout these two dodgy people attempted to intimidate me and anyone else who exposed them!!!!


Support: Mr Lazar's partner Angeline Aamariah, left, and her mother Louise Anne Nelson leave Downing Centre Local Court on Friday. Photo: Christopher Pearce
Controversial lender-of-last resort Ian Lazar is out on bail after his elderly father Rabbi David Rogut put up $200,000 in cash as surety.
Mr Lazar, 43, who appeared by video link from Long Bay jail, has been behind bars since he was arrested on October 30 last year.
He is facing 16 charges, including fraud, dealing with the proceeds of crime, conspiring to intimidate a police officer and the theft of cattle.
Police prosecutor Sergeant Mark Gorman told the Downing Centre Local Court that Mr Lazar showed "a demonstrated capacity to interfere with witnesses" and that he posed an unacceptable flight risk.

Advertisement

A police report from the internal COPS system revealed Mr Lazar had associations with some significant Sydney criminals.
His barrister Greg James, QC, used the report to rattle off a list of supposed associates of his client, including a "Mrs Ibrahim".
Mr James quipped that his client was more like to be at risk from them than the other way around and that Mr Lazar certainly "hasn't been in Macquarie Street at night in recent times".
Mr James said that Mr Lazar, who had mental health issues, was not a flight risk.
Magistrate Mark Buscombe was critical of aspects of the police case saying some of the charges were "fundamentally defective" or that they "failed to provide the proper particulars".
He said it was difficult to assess the strength of the police case as only limited material was placed before the court.
In granting bail, Magistrate Buscombe said that Mr Lazar had to report to North Sydney police daily, hand in his passport and not approach prosecution witnesses.
His bail conditions also include only having one mobile phone, not leaving his house between 8pm and 6pm, and being accompanied by his partner or her mother, Louise Anne Nelson, during the day.