Re Interpretation of Offensive by the Supreme Court
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
26th 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
No comments:
Post a Comment