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