Email to the Chief Magistrate NSW Local Court / S474.17/ Magistrate Lisa Stapleton
It is clear this magistrate fails to understand any complexity of S474.17
Words heard in the  Public Arena cannot be claimed to be so offensive as in S474.17
 Stapelton comparisons with S4A of the Summary Offences Act which is Subjective  and 474.17 which is objective and criminal is all bullshit.

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: cmo@agd.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Lisa Stapleton
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:04:13 +1000

Dear Mr Henson,
I understand you are Chief Magistrate  NSW Local Court.
It is unfortunate that I need to contact you  concerning Magistrate Stapleton.
As you are aware a magistrate is in a position were they must provide procedural fairness. Also part of the process also requires that a magistrate  does not deny natural justice.
On  24th March I appeared before Stapleton charged under S 474.17.  This matter concerns the " reasonable persons" test and therefore  it is an objective test.
You should also be aware the the High Court's decision on " Monis V the Queen"  and also the matter of Brett David Starkey in Queensland .
Particularly the matter of  Starkey  further clarifies S 474.17 stating that words must be read in correct context.  Although the procedure of reading  in correct context would appear to be
logical to most of us  and even to a child in primary school so they were able to correctly understand  the meaning of an article or book it clearly is not the case with Stapleton.
Stapleton clearly stated that to satisfy section  474.17 it is unnecessary to read  or in fact  understand the complete article posted on the internet and she made her decision on this disregarding  any other judgements made in  Courts.
Although she was aware the posts  were exposing  systemic corrupt conduct in Government Department Stapleton claimed this was all nonsense and also  claimed I was a vile person.
 Clearly if Stapleton cannot apply the "reasonable" persons test there can only be  2 options. Either you make her aware of the responsibility of this section of the Act and instruct her that it is entirely Objective  and  not partially objective and partly subjective  or she should be removed from making similar judgements. Stapeton struggled with her understanding of S 474.17 attempting to  compare this with the Summary Offences Act. However you will be aware that S4A Summary Offences Act  is Subjective not Objective.
In hindsight, clearly there is a problem in the court that needs to be rectified.
Please could you notify me why a magistrate in the Downing Center  clearly has failed in her duty of care   and presided over a case where she struggled   understand the complexity  of the 'Reasonable" persons test.
I would appreciate a quick response to this.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown