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

Ex Supreme Court Judge and NSW Attorney General linked to foreign bribery scandal

Clearly John Dowd should have known better!!!

Australia's second ever foreign bribery investigation is launched by the Federal Police into a Sydney-based construction company with links to some of Australia's most notorious terrorists. Australia's second ever foreign bribery investigation has been launched into a Sydney-based construction company with links to some of Australia's most notorious terrorists. After a series of raids in Sydney last week, federal police charged the directors of construction company Lifese - Mamdouh and Ibrahim Elomar - with foreign bribery offences.It is alleged the two attempted to bribe Iraqi government officials in order to secure multi-million-dollar contracts there.Mamdouh's son, Mohammed, is one of Australia's most wanted terrorists, infamous for posing with the severed heads of victims believed to have been killed by Islamic radicals in Syria.Mamdouh's other brother, Mohammed Ali Elomar, is in jail for one of Australia's largest terror plots.Within hours of the AFP's raids on the firm's offices last Thursday, the former opposition leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party, John Dowd, resigned as chairman of Lifese where he was a director for over six years. Earlier this week AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin confirmed it was only the second foreign bribery case to reach the courts."The AFP holds 14 active foreign bribery investigations at the moment," he said."Of those though, only 13 have foreign bribery as a primary offence and I will say that of those 14 only nine are publicly known at this stage."Two matters are at court and neither are resolved."No charges have been laid against Mr Dowd, and the ABC makes no suggestion of legal impropriety on his part.The former NSW attorney-general and retired Supreme Court judge confirmed to the ABC he had resigned from the Lifese board but was unable to comment further as the matter was before the courts.Foreign bribery case a 'wake-up call' to company directorsNeville Tiffen, director with Transparency International Australia and former head of global compliance for Rio Tinto, said it was the duty of directors to ensure their company was abiding by the law."Having another prosecution in Australia for foreign bribery really should be a wake-up call to all directors and executives, both listed and non-listed companies," he said."If I was a director of any company I'd be really checking my compliance programs, not just for the sake of the company but for the sake of the shareholders and even for my own sake."The chairman as, if you like, the senior director, it's obvious he's in a pivotal position to guide the company."He should be making sure the board is asking the right questions of management, really testing out management, really making sure they're digging deep and to find out any weak spots in the processes." The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been critical of Australia's handling of foreign bribery matters.The director of Melbourne University's centre for corporate law, Professor Ian Ramsay, said Australia had been "on notice for quite some years now"."To some degree the Government has responded," he said."For example, several years ago they substantially increased the penalties where it is proven that someone engages in bribery of a foreign public official, but there's more to the issue here than simply increasing the penalties or having strong law on the books."At the same time, we need very strong enforcement and I think it would be true to say that the Australian record over a number of years has been fairly patchy, particularly under those provisions of the Criminal Code Act that deal with bribery of foreign officials."Mamdouh and Ibrahim Elomar will appear in court on foreign bribery charges next month and face jail sentences of up to 10 years if found guilty. - See more at: http://www.australiaplus.com/international/2015-02-26/foreign-bribery-investigation-launched-into-sydneybased-construction-company-lifese-with-links-to-te/1418895#sthash.tD7zQQBn.dpuf

  S474.17 Criminal Code 1995/ Letter to Judge Jefferys Downing Center Sydney
Re Interpretation of Offensive by the Supreme Court

 

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

fionabrown01@hotmail.com

26^th 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

David Eastman conviction quashed/ Shonky  Supreme Court Judge

So what about the Dodgy Supreme Court Judge Michael Adams who was the prosecutor in this trial and failed to run a fair trial?? It appears I need to have a register of Dodgy Magistrates and Judges  in Australia.

 There is also a shonky dodgy Magistrate in  the NSW Local court Lisa Stapleton. Despite High Court Decision this dodgy Magistrate fails to understand that  for Offensive or insulting words to be considered CRIMINAL these words must provoke  unlawful actions or violence. So what was the motive for shonky Stapleton to make such a decision. Was she trying to do Veronique Ingram and the dodgy staff at AFSA a favor and if so what would she maybe get in return????

So what of Shonky Mchael Adams who is now a Supreme Court Judge? Will there be an investigation into his conduct??? Also if one shonky Judge sits in the Supreme court how many of the others are shonky?

David Eastman freed from jail, conviction quashed for murder of AFP assistant commissioner Colin Winchester

Updated about 10 hours agoFri 22 Aug 2014, 11:55pm

PHOTO: The ACT Supreme Court has ordered the murder conviction of David Eastman be quashed. (ABC News)

RELATED STORY: A look at one of the nation's longest-running legal sagas

MAP: ACT

David Harold Eastman has been released from prison after his conviction for murdering a top police officer was quashed by the ACT Supreme Court.

Eastman was released on bail pending a retrial, after agreeing to strict conditions imposed by the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Eastman has served more than 19 years in prison after being found guilty of killing Australian Federal Police assistant commissioner Colin Winchester in 1989.

In May an inquiry found Eastman had not received a fair trial, primarily because of flaws in the forensic case, and recommended his murder conviction be quashed.

On Friday he left Canberra's Alexander Maconochie Centre escorted by police, after the court ordered the conviction be quashed and that a retrial be held, at the DPP's discretion.

AUDIO: Court quashes Eastman's 1980s murder conviction(PM)

In its decision, the court said the circumstances and gravity of the offence, together with the life sentence imposed, were compelling factors that weighed heavily in favour of ordering a retrial.

"If we do not order a retrial, Mr Eastman's guilt or otherwise will never be determined.

"Whilst Mr Eastman would of course be entitled to the presumption of innocence, in our opinion it is not in the interests of justice for the controversy as to his alleged role in the murder to be left unresolved when there remains a strong circumstantial case against him."

Critical witnesses in the case may have died: lawyer

The bail application was not opposed by the DPP but strict conditions were attached.

The DPP sought conditions including that Eastman should go to an address outside the ACT and that he should inform authorities if he travelled from that address.

They also included not contacting more than 200 people, including members of the Winchester family.

After an adjournment, Eastman accepted these conditions with some small changes and was granted bail.

The conditions imposed will be reviewed in three weeks.

The ACT DPP said he was still considering whether to run a new trial.

VIDEO: David Eastman freed from Canberra jail after murder conviction quashed (7pm TV News ACT)

John Boersig from the Legal Aid Commission, which acted for Eastman during Friday's proceedings, read a statement outside the court after the decision was handed down.

"Throughout the long history of this case Mr Eastman has strenuously asserted his innocence," he said.

"He's relieved, finally, to be exonerated and to regain his freedom after 19 years."

Dr Boersig said Eastman wanted to thank his lawyers and all others who had supported him.

"He is looking forward to resuming an active and normal life including seeking employment and would greatly appreciate it if his privacy could be respected."

Dr Boersig said Eastman would not be making any further comment to the media until the question of a retrial was dealt with.

Terry O'Donnell, a former lawyer for Eastman, spoke to the media outside the court after the decision was handed down.

"We're back to where we were in December 1992," he said.

"There's still one more step to go but I believe Mr Eastman has a strong defence case, that's if the matter is ever to go to trial again.

"There is much that hasn't properly been canvassed yet."

Mr O'Donnell was Eastman's lawyer at the beginning of the trial in 1995, and the latest inquiry into Eastman's conviction was set up after he came forward with new evidence about how gun residue came to be in Eastman's car.

He said he believed there would be significant difficulties in a retrial.

"Critical witnesses that were never tested at the coronial inquest or the trial have died," he said.

Eastman to be treated like any other prisoner: Attorney General

PHOTO: Eastman huddles under blankets in the back of a car, after his release from Canberra's Alexander Maconochie Centre. (7.30's Chris Kimball)

ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell said his thoughts were with the Winchester family.

"[Friday's] developments will not be welcomed by them and my thoughts are with them at this time,” he said.

Mr Corbell said Eastman would be treated "like any other prisoner" on his release.

"The Government's policy is that no detainee is released into homelessness following their period of imprisonment,” he said.

"The Government will be utilising its through-care program to provide appropriate support and assistance to Mr Eastman."

Mr Corbell said the cost of the inquiry had been significant to the ACT Government.

"Certainly in the order of over $10 million has been spent to assist the conduct of the inquiry into Mr Eastman's conviction," he said.

Meantime, the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner John Hinchey told 666 ABC Canberra the court's decision was distressing for Mr Winchester's family.

"This is another day of mourning for the Winchester family," he said.

"They are disappointed in the result. They don't wish to speak publically on the matter.

"However they do want to extend their gratitude the AFP and the DPP for their pursuit of justice for Colin Winchester."

Police officer shot in neighbour's driveway

In Friday's decision the court described the Eastman matter as "a wholly exceptional case" and found that despite the time that has elapsed since the offence, and the time that Mr Eastman has already spent in custody, it was an appropriate case to order a new trial.

The judges found that if a retrial went ahead, it would be open to Eastman to seek a permanent stay.

To be granted a permanent stay, Eastman would need to demonstrate that he could not be fairly tried, that a further trial would be seriously and unfairly burdensome, there was an abuse of process, or that a retrial would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Eastman case

David Eastman was convicted of murdering AFP assistant commissioner Colin Winchester in 1989. Take a look back at one of Australia's longest-running legal sagas.

Mr Winchester was shot as he got out of his car in his neighbour's driveway at Deakin on January 10, 1989.

Eastman became a suspect in the case, the day after the killing.

Detectives targeted Eastman who had threatened Mr Winchester after he refused to help him have an assault charge withdrawn.

Eastman believed if he was convicted for that crime it would thwart his bid to rejoin the public service.

He was eventually convicted of killing Mr Winchester in 1995 and sentenced to life in jail.

He has long protested his innocence, through numerous appeals including in the High Court.

FOI Australian Public Service Commission/ APS Disclosure Log/ Audit Committee

So again I have requested the names of the people on the APSC Audit Committee.
The Audit Committee is a requirement under  the  Financial Management and Accountability Act. Its function is to ensure compliance.
The APSC FOI officer has determined that they will not disclose this information.
Clearly the only reason this information cannot be obtained under FOI is because the the APSC are aware this committee is shonky and dodgy and fails to live up to the function it was designed for.
Part of the functions of this audit committee is  to ensure the incompetent dodgy Commissioner Steve Sedgwick  complies with correctly investigating the complaints made against Commonwealth Agency Heads instead of FUCKING them all over as he has done in the  past. It is also a  requirement of the dodgy Commissioner to investigate complaints by WHISTLE BLOWERS and not fuck these over also or  get  Robert Cornall to fuck them over for him

Email to the DPP/ S474.17 Criminal Code

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
Subject: Notice of Motion
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:35:21 +1000

Dear Stephen,

I confirm I served a Notice of Motion and affidavit on the DPP today

I also confirm you said this matter was " complex" when we were last in court on the 6th August

so I refer to the further conduct of this matter.....

It is becoming abundantly clear that the proceedings cannot be maintained on the basis of the information before the court.

In addition, before the Magistrate the crown failed to apply the proper Tests as set out in  the decision of Monis V the Queen , Coleman V Power and Brett David Starkey

In addition it appears from a procedural fairness prospective the Crown’s case must fail as none of the witnesses who have executed statements have been able to substantiate the matters that  have been raised in their statements or  to produce  any evidence to underpin the statement of facts  or allegations that they claim. In addition  many of the allegations contained  in the statements are hearsay and totally unsupported and given that none of the  witnesses were allowed  to be called it appears extraordinary that the  court did not summarily dismiss the prosecution,

Accordingly I take this opportunity to  withdraw  the prosecution and consent  to orders quashing the conviction

I await your consideration

Yours Sincerely

Fiona Brown

FOI Australian Public Service Audit Committee

So  who is on the Australian Public Service Audit Committee and fails to hold dodgy Sedgewick accountable for protecting shonky Agency Heads   and   provides false certificates of compliance????

---

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:34:58 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI request [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

I refer to your FOI request of 19 June for the names of members of the Australian Public Service Commission’s Audit Committee.  We are consulting one or more of those individuals about disclosure of their personal information under the FOI Act.  In these circumstances, the timeframe for responding to an FOI request is extended by 30 days.  We will contact you again in the near future.

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au