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

7^th 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