Seriously flawed
application of Criminal law created by
lazy decisions of the NSW Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of the
High Court of Australia protected by District Court Judge Helen Syme
Request for stated Case.
1 The Chief Justice of the High Court of
Australia failed to apply Basic
statutory interpretation Skills to S471.12 or S 474.17 Criminal Code Act and
failed to read the statute in correct context.
Further to this Justice Robert French
created a fictitious fault element for the statute or legislation which
appears in no other statute or country in the world.
This
is a result that Justice French was too lazy to read the statute in correct
context
2 The construction of “ offensive” laid down in the NSW CCA fails to
reach a criminal Standard. The NSW Chief Justice found that
“offensive” for the Purpose of s474.17 or S 471.12 meant “Calculated or likely to arouse significant
anger resentment outrage or
disgust in the mind of a reasonable person
in all circumstances”
The correct test for “offensive’
is laid down in the Judgment of Worchester V Smith. O’Bryan J refers to Ex
parte Breen 1918 Ledrum V Campbell1932
and Wragge V Pritchard1930 .
This lazy NSW Chief Justice, Tom Bathurst, failed to
correctly quote the Judgment of
Worchester V Smith 1951 in the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal and has created a
precedent for this interpretation which is binding in lower Courts.
Fiona Brown
Reference NO 2013/202652
fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Judge Syme
NSW
District Court
Downing Centre
Sydney
7th
March 2016
Dear
Judge Syme
I refer to your abrupt response for a Stated
Case for the NSW Criminal Court of
Appeal.
I attach a copy for you to consider if this response and your failure to
outline your reasons for dismissing the
request is appropriate.
I remind you that you are obligated provide me
with a stated case or at the
very least set out the reasons why you consider my request is irrelevant or
trivial or frivolous.
It is not a function of the District Court
Judges to protect Justices of the NSW
Criminal Court of Appeal or Justices of the High Court who fail in their
statutory duty in the application of Criminal Law.
There are two atrocious errors in law in the
application of S 474.17. The first is the NSW Chief Justice failed to construct the word “
offensive” to a criminal standard. This
is a result that the NSW Chief Justice failed to read the Judgment of O’Bryan J in
Worchester V Smith 1951 in
correct context and relied on
the Judgment of J Pape in Inglis V Fish 1961
and John Kerr in Ball V McIntyre 1966 who also misquoted the Judgment of
O’Bryan J .
“Calculated or likely to arouse significant anger, resentment outrage or disgust in the mind of a reasonable person
in all circumstances “ is not the test laid down in Worchester V Smith for the
word “offensive” which creates criminal sanction.
The Test for “offensive” lies in the Judgments
of Ex parte Breen 1918, Ledrum V Campbell 1932 and Wragge V Pritchard 1930 which O’Bryan J
refers to in his Judgment.
At 58[Monis V the Queen]HCA 2013
Justice French said
On the construction of
"offensive" adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeal, conduct which a
reasonable person would regard in all the circumstances as offensive within the
ordinary meaning of that term would not necessarily be offensive for the
purposes of s 471.12.
You have been told this but you consider it
irrelevant. You have also been told that
that the construction of the statute fails to comply with the general
principals of criminal responsibility. You also
consider this irrelevant
The second atrocious error lies directly with the Chief Justice of the High Court of
Australia.
His construction of the statute of S471.12
which is almost identical to S 474.17 in
its application breaches Chapter 2 Divisions 3.2, 13.1 and 13.2 Criminal Code
Act 1995. This is a result of the Chief Justice of the High Court failing to
apply basic statutory interpretation skills
to the legislation.
The Chief Justice of the High Court failed to
read the statute according to Acts interpretation Act S 12 , failed to identify
the physical elements which create the offence, failed to then identify the
fault elements of the offence.
To compensate for his atrocious errors, the
Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia created a fictitious fault element
which appears in no other statutes or Legislation in no other country in the
world.
It is not a function of the High Court of
Australia to create fictitious fault elements.
Please provide me with the reasons
you consider such atrocious errors in
the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia should be
protected by a Judge of the NSW District
Court.
Alternatively you may like to reconsider
your rash decision which you have made and provide me with the
Stated Case I requested.
I will
expect your response within the next 7 days and I caution you that that it is not in the interest of Justice to
protect such failures in basic
application of Criminal Law.
Thank You
