Use of emails to be menacing, harassing or offensive
R v Silber
In September and October 2013 a construction authority was constructing the light rail tracks and stations for the Gold Coast Light Rail. The construction was noisy and went throughout the nights.
[2] The defendant Jack Silber resided adjacent to a portion of the line being constructed. He found the noise from the construction to be unbearable. It interfered with his sleep, so much so that he was diagnosed by Dr Mark Jeffrey as having severe sleep deprivation. Dr Jeffrey, a general practitioner, referred him to see Dr Clive M Jones, a psychologist, whom the defendant consulted after he had been charged with the offences before the court. I shall return to the evidence of these two witnesses later.
[3] What brings the matter before the court is that in his state, the defendant, sent a series of emails to Julia Coates from 17 September 2013 to 9 October 2013 (charges 2 to 10 inclusive; 17 to 25 inclusive and charge 35) and made phone calls either speaking personally or leaving a message by voice mail to the Gold Coast Rapid Transit Project (charges 36 and 37) and to the local member of the Commonwealth Parliament Mr Steven Ciobo (charge 38).
[4] The prosecution offered no evidence in respect of charges 11 to 16 inclusive and 26 to 34 inclusive and those charges at the commencement of the trial were struck and the defendant was discharged in respect of them. Charge 1 was not before the court.
[5] Each of the charges that he faces are charges brought pursuant to section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act [1995] (Commonwealth) which allege that he used a carriage service in such a way that reasonable persons would regard that use as being menacing, harassing or offensive.
[6] Helpfully the defendant has made admissions in respect of all the charges before the court, which admissions are set out in exhibit 1. In general terms they were that he was the person who used the carriage service to send the communication in each case. He has also admitted the contents of the communications.
[7] The matters which need to be determined in this case are:
1. Has it been proved that it is more probable then not that at the time of such use he:
(a) Did not know the nature and quality of his conduct; or
(b) He did not know his conduct was wrong (that is, he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong); or
(c) He was unable to control the conduct.
2. Did the defendant intend to use the carriage service on each occasion;
3. Was the defendant aware that there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard such use as being menacing, harassing or offensive; and
4. Having regard to the circumstances known to the defendant it was unjustifiable to take that risk;
Discussion on the law
[8] The Commonwealth Criminal Code codifies criminal responsibility for offences against the code. Each offence consists of physical elements and fault elements[1].
[9] The physical element of a charge may be the conduct, or a result of the conduct, or a circumstance in which the conduct, or a result of the conduct, occurs. Conduct means, an act, an omission to perform an act, or a state of affairs[2]. The fault element for a particular physical element may be intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence[3].
[10] If the law creating an offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists only of conduct, then intention is the fault element for that physical element.[4] Further if the law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists of a circumstance or a result, then recklessness is the fault element for that physical element.[5]
[11] In all of these charges there are two physical elements. The first physical element is that the defendant used a carriage service. As it consists only of conduct then intention is the fault element for that physical element. A person has intention with respect to conduct if he or she means to engage in that conduct.[6]
[12] The second physical element of these offences is that reasonable persons would regard the use of the carriage service as being menacing, harassing or offensive. This is a circumstance of the first physical element of using the carriage service. If a law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists of a circumstance or a result, then recklessness is the fault element for that physical element.[7]
[13] A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if he or she is aware of a substantial risk that circumstance exists or will exist and, having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.[8] If recklessness is a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.[9]
[14] No real challenge was made by the defendant as to the second physical element of the offences, that is “reasonable persons would regard the use of the carriage service as being menacing harassing or offensive”. Rather the defendant has defended the matter on the basis that when using the carriage service in the way he used them he was not criminally responsible because he was suffering from a mental impairment.[10]
Mental Impairment
[15] A person is presumed to not be suffering from a mental impairment, which presumption is only displaced if it is proved on the balance of probabilities that the person was suffering from such a mental impairment.[11]
[16] In order to prove that he was suffering from the mental impairment the defendant called Dr Mark Jeffrey and Dr Clive Jones.
[17] Dr Jeffrey though the course of giving his evidence by telephone took exception to the prosecutor questioning his expertise to proffer an opinion. His behaviour was such, when giving evidence over the telephone, that I terminated the call and informed Mr Silber that should he wish to continue to ask Dr Jeffrey any questions then Dr Jeffrey would have to come to the court room itself and give evidence in person. Mr Silber indicated that he did not wish to ask any more questions of Dr Jeffrey and Mr Glenn informed me that he didn’t wish to cross examine Dr Jeffrey.
[18] Dr Jeffrey’s evidence was not helpful and where he ventured to proffer an opinion beyond giving his diagnosis of severe sleep deprivation, I reject such evidence. For instance he said that Mr Silber, in taking a drug Oxiconten 80mg at two per day and another drug Oxinorm at 20mg as needed, would affect his ability to conduct his own defence, I reject that evidence. The defendant, by the way he conducted this trial showed himself to be very capable of conducting his own defence. He asked appropriate questions and showed a high level of understanding of the proceedings and the relevant issues in the trial. I accept the evidence of Dr Jeffrey that he diagnosed Mr Silber as suffering severe sleep deprivation. He described Mr Silber as being in a very irritable and agitated state.
[19] Dr Jones gave evidence as to his qualifications. Mr Glenn accepted his qualifications as do I. Those qualifications are set out in exhibit 5, essentially he is a registered psychologist specialising in the practise of mental health assessment and treatment. He graduated in 1999 with a PhD in psychology. His qualifications were questioned by Mr Glenn, where it was established that Dr Jones had a Diploma of Education, a Bachelor of Education, a Masters of Education and a Doctorate in Philosophy, majoring in psychology. He said he said the major part of that doctorate was stressor adaptation. Dr Jones has written articles regarding adjustment disorders and in the last year completed four or five reports for use in court. He said he probably appeared in court only about once in the last 12 months as, according to him, usually his report is enough. He said that Mr Silber was referred to him in 2014 for anxiety. This would have been several months after the alleged commission of the last offence. He said that Mr Silber had nine sessions from 17 March 2014 to 18 August 2014. He stood by the opinions expressed in his report of 22 August 2014, exhibit 4. He diagnosed Mr Silber as having an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance in emotion and conduct which was as a consequence of the difficulties he has in coping effectively with the excessive and prolonged construction noise taking place near his home.
[20] Dr Jones said that he wasn’t stating that Mr Silber was in a constant irrational automotive state, but rather he was in a state of irrational mental health. He said he was fairly certain it was irrational. He described Mr Silber’s behaviour as being unproductive and destructive. Annexure to exhibit 1 was put to him. That annexure is an email from the defendant to Julia Coates at 1:54 pm on 17 September 2013. It says:
“Hi Julia,
Thank you for your response.
I wonder if you would have responded more quickly if it was your bedroom window that was in the immediate vicinity of the horrendous racket that I (and other innocent victims) are forced to endure. Incidentally, it is not just at night. It is now around 1:00 pm. I am trying to work from my home office. There’s that mind numbing racket again. It NEVER ends, Julia. It NEVER ends!!!!!!!!!
But back to your response, just like your precious ghost train – it’s a massive fail. Irrespective of which clown at the light Fail is currently responsible for the distribution of the newsletter, now or then, once I was placed on the mailing list, which was I removed from it?? None of my contact details have changed.
And irrespective of what poor sucker got lumbered with telling lies in Phil’s place, it fails to address not only why those newsletters ceased, but more importantly, why the work is continuing well past the advised date, why it is being done at ridiculous and unacceptable hours of the day and night, and why I was lied to about all of the above.
As I live and work on the route, and rarely travel anywhere other than central Southport and central Broadbeach, it would be a reasonable assumption that this ghost train is being constructed for victims ‘like me’. Therefore, as you supposedly have my/our best interests at heart (sic) should it not be a priority to at very least keep us informed of your proposed destruction of our city and lifestyle?
And please DO take this personally Julia, including all the insults to your intelligence and integrity. No, I do not buy the excuse that you or anyone else is just ‘doing their job’. If you are involved with this fiasco in any capacity then you share the burden of responsibility. I would rather be on the dole (soon a distinct possibility after the damage that your ghost train is inflicting on my home, my sleep, my lifestyle, and my workplace) than work for such a corrupt and vile project.
Would you accept a job as a personal assistant to a vandal or rapist? Then why accept employment from a company that is involved in the systematic rape and destruction of this once great city?
The site of the empty ghost trains (with their ‘world first surfboard racks’) rumbling through the empty streets of the ghost town that YOU and the other thieves, idiots, and vandals have created will be a pyric victory for me. I will be proved correct, you will be able to count the passengers on a leper’s left hand.
But all you clowns will have moved on by then to inflict your ‘special’ brand of misery on some new unsuspecting victims.
The only bright spot is that if we should suffer another GFC all you leeches will be able to return to work on the next project masquerading as a ‘means of generating employment’ while in reality it’s little more than a scam to line the pockets of corrupt businessmen and politicians. And what will that shiny new project be? Well of course, it will be ripping down this stupid white elephant that you are now building.
I suppose all you clowns will then stand up and take credit for your latest ‘innovative restructuring’ of our city.
You Julia, and every other criminal involved in this scam are just one bit sad f***ing abomination and a blight on our city!
Yours in total disgust!
Jack Silber”
[21] Dr Jones proffered the opinion that Mr Silber in constructing that email was acting in an irrational, illogical and confused state. In other words he was out of control. Dr Jones was also referred to annexure 2 to exhibit 1 which concerns charge 3 and which is another email sent to Julia Coates at 11:13 pm on 17 September 2013. It says:
“ITS ELEVEN FUCKING THIRTY PM AND THAT FUCKING NOISE HASN’T FUCKING STOPPED.
FUCK YOU PIG
IGNORANT CUNTS!!!
FUCK YOU AND YOUR STUPID USELESS FUCKING TRAM!!!
I HAVE TO WORK TOMORROW YOU FUCKING CUNTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
That was also in a much larger font than the other emails.
Once again Dr Jones, when referred to this said that Mr Silber had lost reason when he wrote this email.
[22] He was cross examined concerning Mr Silber’s record of interview in which he took part on 11 October 2013. The record of interview has been viewed by me and at all times Mr Silber appeared to me to be in full control of his mental abilities. In particular, Dr Jones was taken through that portion of the record of interview which is transcribed on pages 12 and 13 of the transcript which was tended as an aid to the court, wherein Mr Silber says “…I am more than happy to show you that and quite frankly some of the emails which probably the complaint isn’t about me complaining about not getting an answer they probably complaining about some of the language and colourful phrases I’ve used and quite frankly I make no apologies for that. None whatsoever.” And when he was asked to tell the investigating officers about the colourful phrases he had used he said; “Let me put it this way, the only reason they like that is because I couldn’t think of anything more colourful.”
[23] Dr Jones was also referred to that part of the record of interview transcribed at page 15 of the transcript where Mr Silber says; “I understand what’s happening, I’m cognisant I’m not when I say I’m tired. I still have to work and tried to talk to clients. I’ve got to go to the toilet to speak with them because I can’t hear them and make them hear me.” The doctor was also taken to that part of the record of interview transcribed at pages 18 and 19 which when he was questioned about the telephone call to Mr Ciobo’s office where he said (leaving out the affirmative responses by the investigating officers):
“I, I rang the office, I spoke to a lady, who’s the only person I spoke to in that call. She didn’t put me through to Mr Ciobo or anybody else. I told her what my concern was, I told her what I thought of the light rail in general but I thought that’s not the reason for my call. The reason of my call is the manner in which is being done. She said I sympathise with you at first…I’m not sure who you should be calling. I think it was at this point that she said I should be speaking to probably my local member rather than the Federal member and she was going to call me back which she promised basically to do with his number. And there was a few other things that I thanked her for that never received a call back.”
[24] He goes on in that portion of the interview to say that he didn’t swear at this lady as he had no reason to and he only used the more colourful language when he’s dealing with people who have slapped him in the face.
[25] Dr Jones was also referred to that part of the interview transcribed in page 24 of the transcript where Mr Silber said when being questioned about driving a truck full of explosives into the light rail works he said, “I think there is a bit of paraphrasing going on there…because I am very careful not to make threats because I when you make threats, that’s a whole different ball game. Abusing people is one thing which perhaps one good argument is right or wrong. But when you make threats, a whole different ball game. So I steer away from that.”
[26] Notwithstanding these insights held by Mr Silber into his own behaviour Dr Jones proffered the opinion that Mr Silber’s capacity to make irrational judgments was diminished. Dr Jones in re-examination formed the opinion that Mr Silber did not know the conduct in which he engaged was wrong. He did not know what he was doing at the time. Section 7.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code provides as follows:
7.3 Mental impairment
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, at the time of carrying out the conduct constituting the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that:
(a) the person did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) the person did not know that the conduct was wrong (that is, the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong); or
(c) the person was unable to control the conduct.
[27] In my view I don’t accept Dr Jones as an expert qualified to diagnose that Mr Silber was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that did not know the nature and quality of his conduct or that he did not know that the conduct was wrong or that he was unable to control the conduct. A Doctorate of Philosophy majoring in Psychology with a major part of that doctorate concerning stressor adaptation is not sufficient to raise Dr Jones to that status of expertise to be diagnosing mental impairment as defined in s7.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Such an opinion is beyond his field of expertise. Certainly psychology is a field of specialised knowledge and a psychologist such as Dr Jones may be in a position to express opinions based on his specialised knowledge.[12] However the opinion expressed by Dr Jones was beyond the expertise identified by him.
[28] Even if I were wrong about that classification of Dr Jones’s expertise I would reject his opinion evidence because of the following:
1. Dr Jones saw Mr Silber for nine sessions between 17 March 2014 and 18 August 2014. These sessions commenced about five months after the final alleged criminal act of Mr Silber and whilst psychiatrists and psychologists need always to look back in time at the state of mind of an accused person at the time of the commission of the offence, diagnoses made closer to the time would carry more weight’;
2. Mr Silber in his record of interview on 11 October 2013 seemed to me to be completely in control of his actions and words and seems to me to have good clear insight into his actions when some of the words used by him were raised in the interview. An example of that is him being very careful not to make threats. That shows to me that he was a person very much in control of what he was doing;
3. The emails themselves were expressed in ways that such a person must be in control, that is the person sits at the keyboard, opens up the emails, opens up a new email to go to the person he wanted it to go to, types in comprehensible, well formatted, properly punctuated and well phrased sentences, the message that he wished to convey. Also the words used in the two voice mails (charges 36 and 37) were, whilst abusive and which contained swear words were nevertheless said in a clear and lucid way. In charge 37 he was careful to go to the edge of, but not make a direct threat.
[29] Mr Silber did not give evidence himself.
[30] Accordingly I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Silber at the time of his actions concerning each of the counts he is now facing, was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that he did not know the nature and quality of his conduct or that he did not know the conduct was wrong, or that he was unable to control his conduct.
Did he intend to use the carriage service on each occasion?
[31] Given that he wasn’t suffering a mental impairment on each occasion he used the carriage services and given his admission of using them on each occasion and given his answers in the record of interview I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to use the carriage service on each occasion he used it in these charges.
Menacing harassing or offensive
[32] On each of the charges I have formed the view that the communications were either menacing, harassing or offensive, particulars of which are set out below. Also on each of the charges I have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware that there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard the communication as being either menacing, harassing or offensive (and sometimes more than one of these – see below for particulars) and that having regard to the circumstances known to the defendant it was unjustifiable to take the risk. The reason I am satisfied the defendant was aware of the risk is that in each case he knew what he was doing and the communications in the ordinary sense of how the English language is used could only convey offence, or menace or be harassing as the case may be. There exists no justification for the communications, or, in other words, to take that risk.
Charge 2
[33] This charge concerns the email commencing at page 1 of annexure 1 to Exhibit 1 to Julia Coates dated 17 September 2013 at 1:54pm. The contents of it are also set out in paragraph 20 of this judgment. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware that there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this email as being harassing or offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. In the email he asked her to take personally his insults to her intelligence and integrity. He inferred she was a clown and a leach and a criminal.
Charge 3
[34] This charge concerns the email appearing in annexure 2 to exhibit 1 which is an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 17 September 2013 at 11:13 pm. This email is also substantially set out in paragraph 21 of this judgment. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive. He called her, collectively with others, a “pig ignorant cunt”.
Charge 4
[35] This charge concerns an email sent to Julia Coates on 18 September 2013 at 12:34 pm. It is annexure 3 to exhibit 1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. In it he calls Ms Coates a cunt and a fucking cunt.
Charge 5
[36] This charge concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 18 September 2013 at 1:10 pm. It is annexure 4 to exhibit 1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and harassing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It infers that the person who permitted the work on the light rail was a “low life half wit sadistic cunt”. It infers that Ms Coates is a part of a collective of “lying evasive cunts” and it calls her a criminal.
Charge 6
[37] This charge concerns an email sent by the defendant to Ms Coates on 22 September 2013 at 11:26 pm. It is repeated in annexure 5 to exhibit 1. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It implied that co-workers on the light rail line were “cock socking cunts”. It inferred that Ms Coates was a “cunt” and a “fucking idiot”.
Charge 7
[38] This charge concerns an email to Julia Coates from the defendant on 24 September 2013 at 10:50 pm. It is repeated in annexure 6 to exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It calls Ms Coates a “despotic miserable selfish pig ignorant cunt”. It infers that she is a criminal.
Charge 8
[39] This charge concerns an email from the defendant to Ms Coates on 24 September 2013 at 11:14 pm. Its contents are set out in annexure 7 to exhibit 1. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable person would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It calls her a part of a collective of “self-righteous pig ignorant sadistic cock sucking cunts”. It also calls her a “pompous conceited self-serving bitch”. It infers that she has a “thick Neanderthal scull” and that because of involvement in the light rail construction she was a “filthy slimy cunt”.
Charge 9
[40] This charge concerns an email from the defendant to Julia Coates on 8 October 2013 at 11:41 pm. Its contents are set out in annexure 8 to exhibit 1. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and harassing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It infers that she was a “brain dead moron” and ponders the question as to “where are the bikies when they’re needed” in the context of persons who claim that they were just doing their job were saying things like the SS said during the War and most of them were executed. It calls her part of the collective of “filthy sadistic cunts”. It alleges she is a “hoar for the thieves and cunts she works for”. It calls her a “gutless spineless cheap piece of shit”. It calls here a “sub-human low life” and a “cheap pathetic slut that can’t get a real job”.
Charge 10
[41] This charge concerns an email from the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 12:00 am. It is set out in annexure 9 to exhibit 1. I am satisfied that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It categorises her and or her workmates, one of them at least being “a vexatious brain dead sadistic sub human cunt”
Charge 17
[42] This concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 12:34 am. Its contents are set out in annexure 10 to exhibit 1. I am satisfied that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It calls her a “whore”. It infers that “Tom Tate and Phil Mumfucker are wankers” and that one of them is a “shit dribbling fuckwit”.
Charge 18
[43] This concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 12:44 am. Its contents are set out in annexure 11 to exhibit 1. It is a repeat of the email sent 10 minutes earlier at 12:34 am which concerns Charge 17. For the same reasons I am satisfied that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk.
Charge 19
[44] This concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 1:52 am. It is Annexure 12 to Exhibit 1. I am satisfied that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It calls Ms Coates a “cunt” and says that “there is no hell filthy enough for you cunts to rot in”.
Charge 20
[45] This concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 7:58 am. It is Annexure 13 to Exhibit 1. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and menacing. It calls Ms Coates a “pig ignorant cunt” and someone should cut off her right arm and use it to bash to death “fucking cock sucking cretin that authorised 24 hour per day torture”. It also again refers to her as part of the collective of “miserable despotic cunts”.
Charge 21
[46] This concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 9:02 am. It is Annexure 14 to Exhibit 1. I am satisfied that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and harassing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It refers to her as being part of a collective of “petty piss-weak cock sucking puppets”. It demands the names of the persons who authorised 24 hour per day work, inferring that they’re criminals.
Charge 22
[47] This concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates dated 9 October 2013 at 9:36 am. It is Annexure 15 to Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and harassing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. In it he tells her to “stop fucking brushing me off like you and every other cunt I’ve had the misfortune to deal with since early this year.” It also says “your fucking conspiracy of silence ends today.”
Charge 23
[48] This charge concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 3:25 pm. It is Annexure 16 to Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and harassing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. The email commences, “Hey cunt”. This is offensive. It calls her a “smug whore” and demands “the fucking name” of the “shit pig responsible for this fiasco”.
Charge 24
[49] This charge concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 2:10 am. It is Annexure 17 to Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and menacing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It calls her a “cunt”. It poses a question as to why the persons drilling the infrastructure for the project don’t drill a “fucking hole” in her skull. It says that he is suicidal and asked her to pray that it doesn’t happen because “if I do I’ll take all you cunts down with me”.
Charge 25
[50] This charge concerns an email from the defendant to Julia Coates on 10 October 2013 at 10:39 pm. It is Annexure 18 to Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and harassing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. In it the defendant calls her a “filthy whore”. He also calls her a “piss-weak blob of cane toad sperm”. In it also the defendant wishes he had a rocket launcher so that he could take out “at least a dozen of you cunts from my balcony”. Saying that he would love “to watch you cunts bleed” and expressions to wish that half the people would get on to one tram and the other half on another and smash them head on and to make sure she was sitting up front.
Charge 35
[51] This concerns an email sent by the defendant to Julia Coates on 9 October 2013 at 4:49 pm. It is Annexure 19 to Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and harassing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. It calls Ms Coates a “snivelling weasel cunt” and goes on to say “why am I not surprised when you stop picking tapeworms out of your cunt… the name, whore the fucking name”.
Charge 36
[52] This concerns a voicemail left by the defendant at approximately 12.43am on 11 October 2013 at the Office of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit Project. Its contents are set out in paragraph 66 of the admissions Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. In it he calls the recipients “sadistic, selfish, filthy, fucking cunts’ and “moronic cunts” and “fucking pig-ignorant shitheads” and “slimy fucking scumbags” and “low life shithead cunts”.
Charge 37
[53] This concerns a voicemail left by the defendant at approximately 1.50am on 11 October 2013 at the Office of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit Project. Its contents are set out in paragraph 69 of the admissions Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and menacing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. In it he says “I hope you get fucking arse raped by fucking rabid monkeys and have your genitals cut off with fucking dull razor blades and shoved down your fucking throats until you choke on your own vomit. You cunts should be killed, drawn, quartered, fucked and rooted” and calls the recipients “dead shit fucking cunts”.
Charge 38
[54] This concerns a telephone call to the office of the Member of Parliament Steven Ciobo from the defendant at approximately 2.00am on 11 October 2013. Its contents are set out in paragraph 72 of the admissions Exhibit 1. I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware there was a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard this communication as being offensive and menacing and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. In it the defendant alleged that he was going to drive a truck full of explosives into the light rail works and he was either going to get killed in the explosion or he would be arrested and go to jail.
Conclusion
[55] I find the defendant guilty of all charges 2 – 10 inclusive, charges 17 – 25 inclusive and charges 35 – 38 inclusive.