Clarity Law

In the recent case of R v Willis [2023] QSC 190 in the Supreme Court of Queensland had to decide whether someone could supply a drug to themselves.

The defendant, Dylan Lee Willis, pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing a dangerous drug but not guilty to the charge of unlawfully supplying the (MDMA) to himself. The trial took place in Cairns, and the case was presided over by Judge Henry J. The trial occurred on August 8 and 9, 2023, with the verdict delivered on August 9, 2023.

The prosecution presented a circumstantial case, focusing on the evidence of the arresting officer, a friend of the defendant who lived in the same residence, and various evidentiary admissions.

The evidence showed that on June 6, 2021, the police opened a postal package containing MDMA at the Bungalow Mail Centre in Cairns. The package was addressed to a person named Lilly Ryan at a specific address in Edmonton, Queensland. Subsequently, a search warrant was executed at that address, and in a bedroom, three empty mail packages with similar addresses were found, along with handwritten codes similar to the one on the seized package.

The defendant's friend testified that he had been living with the defendant but provided no details about how long he had lived there or how often the defendant was present at the residence. No evidence was presented about the defendant's employment, habits, or activities, either in Cairns or elsewhere.

The prosecution argued that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the inference that the defendant had some role in the process of ordering and sending the package containing MDMA. However, the judge found that the evidence was too vague to establish the offense of supplying the drug. The judge emphasized that while there were gaps in the evidence, the critical issue was whether there was enough evidence to rationally support the inference sought by the prosecution.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that he proved facts sustained the inference that the accused had some knowing role in the process by which the content of the seized package came to be sent and was to be received. But that inference is too vague of itself to constitute the offence charged there was no evidence capable of proving the guilty inference sought by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge highlighted that there was a lack of evidence showing the defendant's role in the process of ordering, packaging, and sending the drug, and there was no evidence connecting the defendant's actions to an offense in Queensland.

As a result, the judge directed a verdict of acquittal, meaning that the jury was instructed to return a verdict of not guilty due to the lack of evidence to support the charges against the defendant. The judge also noted other difficulties in the prosecution's case, such as issues with the alleged date of the offense and the geographic location.

In summary, the case revolved around the defendant's alleged supply of MDMA to himself, but the judge found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the charges, leading to a directed verdict of acquittal.

While the judge did state a person cannot supply a drug to themselves he did not go further in that explanation as he found there was not sufficient evidence of a crime in the first place.

Supplying drugs to yourself

In R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310 the court had to decide if someone could supply a drug to themselves.

Briefly the facts of the case were that in a series of telephone calls from the defendant Maroney from his prison to his co-offender Watson, formerly a fellow prisoner but by then released, the defendant initiated and arranged with Watson for the supply to him of heroin in prison. That arrangement was that for a sum of money Watson would procure the co-offender Miller to attend the prison as a visitor for the purpose of conveying a quantity of heroin to an inmate other than the defendant who, in turn, would pass it on to the defendant. Because these telephone conversations were recorded the police were able to intercept Miller with the heroin in her possession. The defendant was a heroin user and he intended it for his personal use.

The case turned on whether you could supply a drug to yourself.

Section 6 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 under which the charge was laid provides:

"A person who unlawfully supplies a dangerous drug to another, whether or not such other person is in Queensland, is guilty of a crime."

The key term is “supplies a dangerous drug to another”.

Judge McPherson summed up the difficulty of supplying a drug to yourself as follows

It seems to me to be plain that, in speaking of "another", s 6 predicates the existence of at least two persons, one of whom is the person who supplies the drug and the other the person who is supplied. There must, in other words, be at least one other person ("another"), apart from the supplier, to whom the drug is supplied. In drafting the provisions of s 6, there was strictly speaking no need to have said supplies "to another". It would perhaps have been enough simply to have said "supplies". No doubt, however, the reason why "another" was inserted was so as to go on and make it clear that the offence could be committed if the person to whom the drug was supplied ("such other person") was in Queensland or outside it at the time it was supplied.

All three appeal court judges concluded that a person could not supply a drug to themselves.

However this was not the end of the matter. The criminal code that controls the criminal law in Queensland has the following section:

                "Principal Offenders

7 (1)When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say –

  …

(d) any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

(2) Under subsection (1)(d) the person may be charged either with committing the offence or with counselling or procuring its commission.

(3) A conviction of counselling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence.

Two of the three judges found that Maroney had under s 7(1)(d) of the Criminal Code counselling or procuring the other two accused to commit the offence of supplying a drug to him. Section 7(1) of the Code provides that, when an offence is committed, each of a number of specified persons is deemed "to have taken part in the offence"; and "to be guilty of" the offence; and may be charged "with actually committing it". By s 7(1)(d) those persons include any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence. 

In summary if Maroney had been charged alone like in the case of R v Willis he could not be found guilty of supplying a dangerous drug to himself but because he had procured other people to supply the drug to himself then he could be found guilty as he organised others to supply the drug. It was in essence the other co-defendants actions in supplying drugs that caused Maloney to be found guilty.

For more information of supplying dangerous drugs check out our website.

In Queensland, the legislation legalising sex work is divided between the Criminal Code 1899 and the Prostitution Act 1999 (and their subordinate regulations). In practice, sex work is divided into work that occurs in licenced brothels and work done by independent workers. Both types of operation are heavily regulated, and the nature of the work sex workers are allowed to engage in is tightly controlled. Similarly restrictive rules apply to advertising of sex work.

The legislative regime creates a slough of offences that could apply to a wide range of people within the orbit of sex work. Potential criminal charges may be brought against either sex workers, or their clients, or to anyone running a prohibited brothel, or to anyone allowing a prohibited brothel to operate on their premises. This articles briefly describes the crimes that apply to each of these categories of people.

However, it is also important to note that Queensland is heading in the direction of fully decriminalising sex work. In March 2023, the Queensland Law Reform Commission published its two-volume report into Queensland’s sex-work legislation. That same report made 47 recommendations for change, effectively recommending the decriminalisation of sex work. Legislation giving effect to these recommendations are due to be introduced to the Queensland Parliament by the end of 2023.

*A note on terminology: many workers in the sex industry consider the words “prostitute” and “prostitution” derogatory, outdated, dehumanising, and, therefore, offensive. In this article, every effort has been made to use the terms “sex worker” and “sex work” unless in specific reference to terminology used in legislation. Regrettably, Queensland’s legislation still uses these outdated words to refer to sex workers and their work. Where use of these words is unavoidable, it is indicated that they are being used in their legal context.

The Legislative Regime

The Prostitution Act 1999 creates a licencing system for brothels. It also creates the Prostitution Licencing Authority, who oversees the granting of licences and revocation of licences in certain circumstances. Brothel licences are, in broad terms, similar to alcohol licences granted to entertainment venues. The operation of strip clubs is not governed by the Prostitution Act 1999, as these licences are a subset of liquor licences and are issued by the Office of Liquor and Gaming.

Sole-operator sex workers are not required to hold licences to conduct sex work. However, sole operators must not work in company with another (or other) sex workers. Two or more independent sex workers working together is defined as “unlawful prostitution” in s 229C of the Criminal Code 1899. Notwithstanding this restriction, sole-operator sex workers are permitted to engage either a security guard, or a crowd controller, or a driver but only if those roles are filled by someone who holds a current security licence.

Sole-operator sex workers are also permitted to engage someone that the sex worker can contact about their location and the work they are doing. The purpose of the sex worker contacting this person must be so that the worker can ensure their own safety. The restriction on engaging this person that the sex worker contacts for these purposes is that the person cannot be another sex worker.

Sex workers cannot work out of a massage parlour, nor can they advertise massages as part of their services.

Offences that Apply to Sex Workers and to Other People Generally

Most of the offences that apply to sex workers also apply to their clients or to other people connected to sex work generally. For example, some offences apply to the owners of licenced brothels. Other offences apply to people who own premises where illegal sex work may occur. Examples of these offences include:

• carrying on a business of providing “unlawful prostitution.” The term “carrying on a business” is defined as providing finance and either being part of the management or having control of the business.
• engaging in “unlawful prostitution” or obtaining “unlawful prostitution” through “a business”.
• anyone from being “found in or leaving after having been in a place” where two or more sex workers are working. The exception to this law is if the place is a licenced brothel. However, the licenced brothel exception does not apply if one or more of the sex workers is either a child or has an impairment of the mind and the person found or leaving the place knows that this is the case.
• having an “interest” in a place and allow that place to be used by two or more sex workers. Having an “interest” in a place includes owning it, renting it, leasing it, etc or controlling an “entity” (eg, a corporation) that has such an interest in the place. Again, the exception to this law is if the place is being used by a licenced brothel (unless the brothel contains one or more sex workers who is either a child or has an impairment of the mind).
• “publicly” soliciting for sex work. Public solicitation may occur either in public, or within the sight or hearing of anyone within a public place. There are two exceptions to this law. The first is if the solicitation occurs inside a licenced brothel and the solicitation cannot be seen publicly. The second exception applies to police officers conducting a “controlled activity” (ie, an “undercover” or “sting” operation).
• causing a “nuisance” to another person because of sex work.
• compelling someone to engage in sex work using threats, intimidation, harassment, deception, etc.
• violating the terms of a brothel licence (Part 6 of the Prostitution Act 1999 creates about a dozen separate offences relating to violating the terms of brothel licences).
• providing sexual intercourse or oral sex without a prophylactic (eg, condoms, dental dams, etc).

Furthermore, Division 4 of Part 6 of the Prostitution Act 1999 creates offences relating to advertising for sex work. The legislation dictates what is, and what is not, acceptable advertising for sex work. In short, advertising must be in the approved form and must only occur in approved locations. These advertising rules apply to both brothels and to sole-operator sex workers. Advertisements offering “social escort services” (ie, non-sexual companionship on a commercial basis) are also strictly regulated and must explicitly state that sexual services are not offered.

Offences that Apply to People Other than Sex Workers

Other than the examples listed above, there are some offences that are specifically directed at clients of sex workers, or other people connected with sex work. Examples of these offences include:

• Obtaining sex work from someone who is not an adult (ie, under 18 years old). The client does not need to “know” that the person is underage. If it is proven that it was “reasonable” for the client to know they were engaging a child, then the client will be convicted of this offence.
• Procuring a person to engage in sex work. This offence is specifically described as compelling the person to come to Queensland, or to leave Queensland, in order to engage in sex work. This is what distinguishes this offence from the other offence of using threats, etc, to compel a person to engage in sex work.
• Knowingly participating, directly or indirectly, in the provision of “prostitution” by another person. All the circumstances described above (ie, licenced brothels, security guards, crowd controllers, drivers, safety contact) which allow other people to be involved in a sex worker’s business are specifically listed as exceptions to this otherwise blanket prohibition.

Therefore, the legislative regime is not only directed at restricting the activities of sex workers, but it is also directed at anyone who wishes to get involved in illegal sex work, either as a client, or as a manager of illegal sex workers, or as someone who allows illegal sex work to operate out of premises that they control.

To provide an example of how thorough this regime is, suppose the police execute a search warrant on an apartment where they suspect two or more sex workers are operating. The police could potentially charge the sex workers themselves, any clients found in the apartment, any clients leaving the apartment, the person who is renting the apartment (if someone other than the sex workers are on the lease), and the person who owns the apartment (if someone other than the sex workers own the property). Of course, whether criminal charges may extend that far depends on the circumstances of each case (and the evidence police find). For example, in order to charge the renter or owner of the apartment, the police will need evidence that the renter and / or owner had “knowledge” that illegal sex work was occurring at that place.

Maximum Penalties

Many of the offences listed above have maximum penalties which increase depending on how often the offence has been committed. Many of them follow a pattern of 3 years’ imprisonment for a first offence, 5 years’ imprisonment for a second offence, and 7 years' imprisonment for a third or every subsequent offence. The most severe penalties are reserved for offences that occur in circumstances where the sex worker is a child or has “an impairment of the mind”. In these circumstances, the maximum penalty increases to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Many of these offences are also subject to the serious and organised crime penalties described in Part 9D of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. In short, a person charged with an offence who is also a member of a criminal organisation will face the mandatory imprisonment sentencing structure provided for under that Act.

Many of the “lesser” offences (eg, causing a nuisance, or violating the restrictions on advertising, etc) attract fines as their maximum penalty. Nevertheless, the maximum value of the fines increase depending on how often the offence has been committed for many of these offences.

Possible Defences

As with almost all offences in Queensland, it is possible to raise defences to charges against the sex work legislation. The nature of these defences will vary, depending on the charge.

For example, the offences that require the person charged to have “knowledge” that they were committing the offence may be defended if the person can prove that they had no such knowledge. Even then, the defence will vary, depending on the specific charge. Some offences that require “knowledge” of an illegal act require proof of actual knowledge. Other offences only require that the person “ought reasonably to have known” about a certain state of affairs. In that case, it is only necessary to prove what a “reasonable person” would be expected to know if they were in the position of the person charged.

Conclusion

The offences that apply to sex work are extensive and far-reaching. They apply not only to sex workers themselves, but (potentially) to anyone associated with sex work in Queensland. While this legislative regime is due to undergo significant overhaul in the years ahead, it is important to understand the parameters of sex work as it currently exists.

Because of the enormous complexity of this legislation, and the serious penalties that attach to the offences that it creates, it is also important to get expert legal advice.

If you've ever dealt with legal matters, you're probably familiar with the concept of a statutory declaration. In Australia, statutory declarations serve as formal, written statements used to affirm the truth of certain facts or matters. They play a crucial role in various legal processes, ensuring transparency and accuracy.

Statutory declarations are often used to verify facts or circumstances for legal purposes, such as applying for a visa, claiming an insurance benefit, transferring a ticket or fine to another person or transferring property.

One essential aspect of statutory declarations is that the information in them cannot be a lie. Lying or making a false declaration on a statutory declaration in Queensland is covered under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959.

In this article, we'll delve into the significance of Section 11 and explore two noteworthy cases being R v Ndizeye [2006] QCA 537 and Amin v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 260.

Overview

Section 11 states that:

False declarations

A person must not intentionally make a false statement in a statutory declaration.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 4 years.

The Statutory Declarations Act outlines the requirements and conditions that must be met for a person to take a statutory declaration. This legislation emphasizes the importance of understanding the contents of the declaration and the consequences of making false statements. The goal is to ensure that individuals making statutory declarations are fully aware of the legal implications of their statements and that they make truthful declarations.

A false statement in a statutory declaration is one that is not true or correct in some material particular. This means that the statement must be relevant or important to the purpose or effect of the statutory declaration. For example, if you make a statutory declaration to support your visa application, and you falsely state that you have never been convicted of any offence, that would be a false statement in a statutory declaration.

However, not every mistake or error in a statutory declaration amounts to a false statement. The person making the statutory declaration must have an intention to deceive or mislead by making the false statement. This means that they must know that the statement is false, or be reckless or wilfully blind to its falsity. For example, if you make a statutory declaration based on information that you honestly and genuinely believe to be true, but later turns out to be false, you may not have committed an offence under section 11.

Key points of Section 11 include:

1. Requirement of Understanding: The person making the statutory declaration must have a proper understanding of the declaration's content.
2. False Declarations: It is crucial for declarants to comprehend that making a false declaration is a criminal offense and may lead to penalties.
3. Penalties: Penalties for making false declarations can include imprisonment or fines, underscoring the seriousness of the matter.

Now, let's examine how Section 11 has been interpreted and applied in real-life cases.

Case Summaries

R v Ndizeye

In this case, the appellant pleaded guilty to making a false statutory declaration by falsely stating that he was not the driver of a motor vehicle that incurred a speeding infringement but his mother was. He did this to avoid liability for the demerit points. He made the false statutory declaration before a Justice of Peace at the Brisbane Magistrates Court.

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 175 hours of unpaid community service within 12 months, disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four months, and ordered that convictions be recorded for each offence.

The appellant appealed against the recording of convictions, arguing that it would affect his employment prospects. He also submitted that he had cooperated with the police, had no previous convictions, had shown remorse, and had performed well on his community service order.

The Court of Appeal upheld his appeal and removed the recording of the conviction. The Court held that making a false statutory declaration was a serious offence that struck at the heart of the administration of justice, and that ordinarily a conviction would be called for but his personal circumstances warranted no conviction being recorded.

Amin v Queensland Police Service

In this case, the appellant was convicted, by his plea of guilty, of three offences of making a false statutory declaration by falsely stating that he was not the driver of a motor vehicle at the time that it was detected by a camera for speeding offences. He did this to avoid demerit points and fines.

The presiding magistrate imposed a global fine of $2,500 and ordered that convictions be recorded for each offence.

The appellant appealed against the recording of convictions, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that it would affect his employment opportunities especially his ability to be able to practice as a medical professional. He also submitted that he had limited criminal history, had shown remorse, had paid the fines, and had a disadvantaged background.

The District Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the recording of convictions. The Court held that making a false statutory declaration was a serious offence that involved dishonesty and deception, and that the recording of convictions was within range and not manifestly excessive. The Court also noted that the appellant had made three false statutory declarations on separate occasions, which showed a pattern of offending. The Court found that the offences the offences were serious and strike at the heart of the administration of justice.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the purpose of Section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act (Cth)?

Section 11 ensures that individuals making statutory declarations are aware of the content and consequences of their statements. It emphasizes the seriousness of making false declarations and outlines penalties for such actions.

What are the penalties for making a false statutory declaration?

Penalties for making a false statutory declaration can include imprisonment or fines, as outlined in the relevant legislation.

Why is understanding the content of a statutory declaration important?

Understanding the content of a statutory declaration is crucial to ensure that declarants are fully aware of the truthfulness of their statements. It helps maintain the integrity of legal processes and prevents the submission of false information.

Who can witness a statutory declaration?

A statutory declaration can be witnessed by any person who is authorised by law to do so. This includes justices of peace, lawyers, police officers, doctors, teachers, accountants, engineers, pharmacists, and many other professionals. A full list of authorised witnesses can be found on the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department website.

What is the maximum penalty for making a false statement in a statutory declaration?

The maximum penalty for making a false statement in a statutory declaration is imprisonment for 4 years.

What is the difference between a statutory declaration and an affidavit?

A statutory declaration is a formal statement of facts made under oath or affirmation, while an affidavit is a formal statement of facts made under oath. The main difference between the two is that a statutory declaration can be made in front of a witness, while an affidavit must be made in front of a Justice of the Peace, Commissioner of Declaration or a Lawyer.

Summary

Section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act (Cth) makes it an offence to intentionally make a false statement in a statutory declaration. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 4 years. It is important to be aware of the consequences of making a false statement in a statutory declaration, as the penalties can be severe. If you are unsure about whether or not you can make a statutory declaration, it is always best to seek legal advice.

Remember, the information provided in this article is intended for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice.

We all know it is against the law to use violence against someone. We also know that there are some exceptions to this general rule. Defending ourselves or someone else is one of these exceptions.

What is Self Defence?

In its most straight-forward formulation, self defence means protecting ourselves (or someone else) from violence, or anticipated violence.

For example, a man starts randomly punching you at the pub. In this situation, you are legally entitled to defend yourself. There are a variety of ways you could do this: punching back, tackling him to the ground, or smashing a bottle and stabbing him with it.

Maybe instead of getting punched yourself, a female patron at the pub attacks your fiancé by pulling her hair and kicking her in the legs. In this case, you leap to your fiancé’s defence by either trying to pry the aggressive female’s fingers open so she will release the hair, or, grabbing a pool cue and whacking the aggressor in the face with it.

Reasonableness

In two of the above scenarios, there is a degree of force that might fairly be called excessive. Self-defence is only available as a legal defence if the force used is “reasonable to repel the attack”. To use the first example above, punching or tackling may be reasonable, but stabbing him with a broken bottle probably is not, with the well-known dangers that come with such an action. For the second example, trying to pry open her fingers appears reasonable, but whacking her in the face with a hard weapon like a pool cue probably is not.

While an element of reasonableness is necessary, the courts do not expect a person defending himself, who has to react instantly to danger to “weigh precisely the exact measure of self-defensive action which is required”. That is to say, while the force used to defend yourself must be reasonable, the courts make some allowance for people acting in the heat of the moment, under a highly stressful circumstances, with little time to carefully weigh the reasonableness of their actions.

Pre-emptive Strike

There are circumstances where it is lawful for you to assault another because you reasonably believe you are about to be attacked, without having been attacked first. This will depend on the circumstances.

For example, if in the heat of an argument about footy, a man says to you, ‘To hell with this, I’m going to give you the flogging of a lifetime’ and draws his arm back with a clenched fist, it may be reasonable for you to believe an assault is imminent, and crash tackle the man to the ground, or punch him pre-emptively.

For another example, if a man yells across a wide street to you, ‘Where’s that 10 bucks you owe me? Maybe I should come over there and take it!’, it would not be reasonable for you to take 15 seconds to cross the street to him and push him over. Even if you claimed to believe you would be attacked, the circumstances would suggest it was not reasonable for you to believe an attack was imminent. Following the same example, if the man was striding across the street towards you with an angry facial expression with his hands curled into fists, then it may be reasonable for you to pre-emptively strike him.

As can be seen, much of the above is common sense. Whether self-defence is established is a question for a jury.

Defence of Someone Else

As premised earlier in this article, you are entitled to use force in defence of someone else as well as yourself. It need not be a person known to you. If you were to intervene in a fight and separate two people by pushing one of the women away from the fight, you would likely have a legal defence for the pushing.

Charges the Defence Applies To

In Queensland, there are multiple charges that can be laid in relation to violence: common assault, serious assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, wounding, choking, grievous bodily harm, and even murder.

Self-defence can be raised as a defence for each of these charges.

Defence of Property

Queenslanders have a limited legal right to defence their property, for example, ejecting trespassers from their property. As explained earlier, this must be reasonable. You can push a person off your land, but not clobber him with a weapon. This, of course, can be different if trying to repel a home invasion by armed burglars.

Who Must Prove it?

If the defence is raised on the evidence, then the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence.

Consequences of the Defence

If the jury is persuaded you used violence while acting in self-defence, you will be acquitted and found ‘not guilty’ of the charge. You are free to go about your life and there is no punishment by the Court.

Conclusion

This article is merely an overview. This defence will necessarily be applied where no two scenarios are alike. Needless to say, expert legal advice will be critical in assessment of such matters.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense in Queensland, you may be considering representing yourself in court. However, there are many reasons why this is a bad idea, it is a risky decision that could have severe consequences for your future. In this article, we will explore the critical reasons why you should never represent yourself in court and instead seek the professional expertise of a skilled Queensland-based criminal law firm.

You Are at a Disadvantage

The prosecution will have a team of experienced lawyers and police officers working on your case. They will have a deep understanding of the law and the courtroom process. You, on the other hand, will be representing yourself with no legal training or experience. This puts you at a significant disadvantage.  

Lawyers spend years studying and practicing law, ensuring they understand the intricacies of the legal process and know how to present a strong defence. Without this specialised knowledge, you could easily misunderstand critical legal procedures, jeopardising your case and your rights.

You May Make Mistakes

Even if you are familiar with the law, you may make mistakes in the courtroom. This could include saying the wrong thing, failing to follow the rules of evidence, or presenting your case in a way that is not persuasive. These mistakes could cost you your case. A seasoned criminal lawyer will meticulously handle all aspects of your case, minimizing the risk of costly mistakes.

You will likely have Limited Negotiation Skills in Regards to Criminal Law Matters

Many criminal cases involve case conferencing and negotiations. A seasoned criminal lawyer knows how to negotiate with prosecutors to potentially reduce charges or secure more lenient facts. Attempting to negotiate without proper legal training and knowledge could lead to unfavourable outcomes, leaving you with harsher consequences than necessary.

You will have Inadequate Understanding of Courtroom Etiquette

Courts operate on strict rules of conduct and procedure. Representing yourself without prior experience in a courtroom setting could result in missteps and poor etiquette. This could negatively impact the judge or magistrate, ultimately influencing their perception of your case. A criminal lawyer is well-versed in courtroom etiquette, ensuring that your case is presented in the most favourable manner.

You May Be Emotionally Invested

If you are the one who has been accused of a crime, you are likely to be emotionally invested in your case. This can make it difficult to think clearly and make rational decisions. A lawyer can help you to stay calm and focused on the legal issues.

You May Not Be Able to Afford a Lawyer

You may think that you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, however many lawyers offer fixed fees at fairly reasonable rates. Just don’t assume all lawyers are too expensive to hire. If you think you cannot afford a lawyer, you should still speak to one about your case. They can give you advice on your options and help you to prepare for court.

The Importance of Legal Representation

A lawyer can help you to understand the charges against you, gather evidence in your defence or present your case in the most effective way possible so that you get the lowest penalty and perhaps no conviction recorded. They can also negotiate with the prosecution on your behalf and help you to reach a favourable outcome.

If you are facing criminal charges in Queensland, you need to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible. The experienced criminal lawyers at Clarity can help you to understand your rights and options, and they will fight to protect your freedom. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

If you want to engage us or just need further no obligation information or advice then you can either;

1.       Use our contact form and we will contact you by email or phone at a time that suits you

2.       Call us on 1300 952 255 seven days a week, 7am to 7pm

3.       Book a time for us to call you

4.       Email the firms founder This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

5.       Send us a message on Facebook Messenger

Our office has written in great detail about stealing offences here.

In short, a stealing offence occurs when a person has taken property (things capable of being stolen) with the intent to deprive the owner of the thing, to use as a security or used in a way that it cannot be returned in the condition it was in at the time of taking.

This article is not a detailed outline of the offence, but rather aims to give an outline about how a person could expect their stealing charge to progress through the court system where they intend to plea guilty. Your lawyer will review the matter and advise of any defences if they are available. If you are intending to challenge the charge then your matter will follow a different course than below.

This is not a substitute for tailored legal advice, but aims to clarify some of the uncertainty a person will experience.

Shoplifting –

Shoplifting – or unauthorised dealing with shop goods. This charge arises when a person has dishonestly taken or dealt with goods under a value of $150.00.

This is a matter that is dealt with in the Magistrate’s court and can usually be dealt with on the first occasion if the defendant intends to plea guilty to the charge.

The Court will take the defendants plea and then hear from the prosecution regarding the facts of the case. The Magistrate will then ask the defendant or their legal representative to say something about the defendant and give an explanation as to why the offence was committed.

The defendant will then stand and be sentenced. Given this is an offence against the Regulatory Offences Act, a defendant is liable to a fine of up to 6 penalty units.

How Stealing matters start

All stealing matters will start their life in the Magistrates Court, from there, depending on the seriousness of the offence or any circumstance of aggravation (such as if the value of the theft is over $30,000) the matter will then go through the process of committal and then indictment to the District Court.

Your will be required to attend court on the first mention in the Magistrates Court. You will be usually required to sign bail (see our article on bail here), then your lawyer will advise when you need to attend Court.

Stealing matters in the Magistrates Court

For the stealing matters that will remain in the Magistrates Court they will take one of two paths, either being dealt with in a short plea or where it will require a lengthy plea. The court will not typically hear a plea of guilty if the matter will take longer than 15 minutes in an arrest court (this could be Court 1 in the Southport or Beenleigh Magistrates Courts or Court 2 in the Holland Park Magistrates Court. This will depend on the practice directions of each specific court).

How long a stealing matter will take will depend on a number of factors, namely:

1. the number of offences;
2. the seriousness of the offending;
3. the criminal history of the defendant; and/or
4. a combination of all the above factors.

If the matter will be dealt with in 15 minutes or less, the matter can usually be dealt with either on the first mention or adjourned to another date for sentence in order to obtain material in mitigation of the sentence.

Short plea - A stealing matter will follow the same procedure as all Magistrates Court matters. The Magistrate will ask the defendant to stand and then read out the charge(s) and ask how the defendant pleas. The Magistrate may ask if the plea is of their own free will and/or if they have been promised anything or induced to make the plea.

The Police Prosecutor will then read the facts of the charge and may make a submission with respect of penalty.

Your lawyer will then stand and make submissions to the Court on your behalf, tendering any character references or other supporting material as necessary. Your lawyer will submit on penalty then the Magistrate will require you to stand and deliver the sentence.

A short plea can be dealt with as quickly as the first appearance date or adjourned to allow for the defendant to prepare material for their sentence. It is the quickest way to resolve a stealing offence.

Lengthy plea – A lengthy plea will follow the same procedure as a short plea, however the difference arises from the detail that will be given by both the prosecution and the defence.

The Police Prosecutor in a lengthy plea are more likely to make more detailed sentencing submissions than they would in a short plea. The prosecutor may tender comparative cases and have a more detailed back and forth with the Court.

Your defence lawyer will also make more in depth submissions to the Court regarding penalty and may provide case comparatives.

The Court may be more interactive with each of the parties, asking questions during submissions which may lead to lengthy discussions regarding the facts and how they compare to any tendered comparative cases.

The matter will then follow the same procedure for sentencing as a short plea.

This matter will usually not be heard on the first court appearance and will require adjournment to a specific date on which the court hears lengthy pleas. Courts have a backlog of lengthy pleas, so this may take a few weeks to progress to sentence date.

Matters that must be heard in the District Court

If your matter is to be heard in the District Court, you will be advised very early in the life of the matter. Your lawyer will identify if the matter must go up and will explain the process to you.

Very simply, the matter must be committed from the Magistrates Court to the District Court, where it will then be presented to the District Court on indictment. The Director of Public Prosecutions will take carriage of the matter once it goes up, and they have by law, 6 months to present the indictment. The upshot here is that a matter in the District Court can take a considerable amount of time to be dealt with.

Once the administrative process has occurred between your lawyer, the Court and the DPP it will come time for sentence. The District Court has a much more formal process to it than the Magistrates Court.

Depending on the seriousness of the offence, your lawyer will typically raise the discussion of engaging a Barrister (you might hear them also be called counsel) to do the sentence. Barristers are experts in District Court sentences and work closely with your lawyer in preparation for the sentence.

Once the sentence day comes around, your lawyer will explain exactly what will happen. In short, you will be required to be in the dock, which is the separate area for the defendant. The Judge’s associate will ask you to stand and read out the charges and ask you to enter your plea. As an example of the increased formality, the Associate will then read out your plea back to the Judge directly behind them. The Associate will then advise you that you have been convicted on your own plea and then ask if there is any reason sentence should not be passed on you. It is at that time you will sit down and the Prosecution will commence their case.

The Prosecution will read into the record the agreed facts of the case and then make their submissions with respect to penalty, relying on case comparatives to support their submission.

Your Barrister or Lawyer will then stand and make their own submissions about your background, the circumstances of the offending and provide their own case comparatives in support of the desired penalty.

This will follow a similar process as a Magistrates Court lengthy plea, just with additional formality and detail to correspond with the increased seriousness of the offence. Much like a lengthy plea, there may be some discussion between the Judge, the DPP and your lawyer/barrister during the process. This is normal and to be expected.

You will then stand and the Judge will read out your sentence. The Judge may adjourn the Court for a short time to consider what sentence they will pass.

Case Conferencing

During the course of your matter, you might hear your lawyer mention or talk about the case conferencing process. This is the process in which your lawyer will negotiate with the police prosecutor or the DPP.

The scope of the negotiation can be something as simple as negotiating the agreed facts of the case, or can include a written submission as to reducing or completely dropping some or all of the charges. This is an in depth process that takes some time to occur as it requires a detailed analysis and drafting of a legal argument to be sent to the prosecution and for their office to consider it.

Why get a lawyer

It should be clear from both our detailed article on stealing and the above, that a stealing charge can be a very complex and lengthy process to navigate. Engaging us gives you the best chance at obtaining the lowest penalty or avoiding a jail sentence if this is not your first offence.   We are one of the leading criminal law firms in South East Queensland.  We appear every week in the courts with people charged with stealing, it is this experience that allows us to get the best result for clients.  Other law firms simply don’t have the experience that we do and don’t know the judges like we do.  Just some of the benefits of us acting for you include;

1. we know the judges and what they want to hear to give you the best outcome
2. we have good relationships with the prosecutors meaning we can often have them not seek a jail sentence
3. we are there to help you through the process and make everything as stress free as possible, in most cases you will not have to say anything in court
4. engaging us shows the court you are taking your charges seriously
5. your matter will be heard early, often first, you do not have to wait for 20-30 other matters to be heard before you
6. you will be fully informed of what is to happen in court and what this means for you after court
7. unlike the police or the Judge, we are there to look after you, your privacy and your interests

If your matter is going to progress by a lengthy plea in the Magistrates Court or on indictment to the District Court you will be engaged with your lawyer for a not insignificant period of time. Clarity Law’s lawyers all pride themselves on ensuring that you truly understand what is happening with your matter, that you have confidence and know that we are acting in your best interest. That is the Clarity Law difference and our record reflects this approach.

If you want to engage us or just need further no obligation information or advice then you can either;

1.       Use our contact form and we will contact you by email or phone at a time that suits you

2.       Call us on 1300 952 255 seven days a week, 7am to 7pm

3.       Book a time for us to call you

4.       Email the firms founder This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

5.       Send us a message on Facebook Messenger

Under section 6 of the Regulatory Offences Act 1985 in Queensland, it is an offence to leave a hotel without paying for the accommodation, food, or other services provided. This offence is also known as "dine and dash" or "hotel skipping."

What is the offence?

The offence is committed if a person:

• Stays in a hotel; or
• Receives food, drink, accommodation, or other services from the hotel or a restaurant; and
• Does not pay for the services or food and drink

The value of the services does not matter, as long as it is less than $150.

What is the penalty?

If you are charged with leaving a hotel without payment, you may be liable to a fine of up to $300. You may also be ordered to pay compensation to the hotel for the value of the services you received.

Defences

There are a few defences to the charge of leaving a hotel without payment. For example, you may be able to argue that you had a reasonable belief that you would be able to pay for the services, or that you were forced to leave the hotel due to an emergency.

If you are charged with leaving a hotel without payment, it is important to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible. A lawyer can help you understand the charges against you and your legal options.

What if the value was more than $300?

If the value of the food, drink or accommodation was more than $150 then a more serious charge of fraud would likely be bought against you. This carries with it a higher chance that a conviction will be recorded that would stay on your criminal history for 5 years.

Here are some things to keep in mind if you are charged with leaving a hotel without payment:

• The police may not charge you with the offence immediately. They may first try to contact you and ask you to pay for the services. If you do not pay, they may then issue you with a summons to appear in court.
• If you are charged with the offence, you will be given a court date. You must attend court on this date, or you may be issued with a warrant for your arrest.
• If you are found guilty of leaving a hotel without payment, you may be fined or ordered to pay compensation to the hotel.
• If the value of the food, drink or accommodation is more than $150 then a more serious charge will likely be bought.