Clarity Law

If you have ever seen a police procedural show or film about a criminal law trial, you undoubtedly have heard the phrase Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard by a Judge, Magistrate or Jury must be satisfied that is person guilty, for them to convict a defendant for a crime. It is the burden which the prosecution must meet to secure a conviction for an offence.

What exactly does Beyond a Reasonable Doubt actually mean?

The High Court of Australia has wrestled with this problem in 2017, where they have said it is generally unwise for a trial judge to try to analyse and define what reasonable doubt is, but ultimately determined that it can assist a jury by explaining and contrasting the standard to that of the civil standard, being on the Balance of Probabilities.

What is the Balance of Probabilities?

The civil standard of Balance of Probabilities is simple. Is it 51% or more likely that the facts presented are probably correct and occurred as stated.

This is a stark contrast to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. In the civil arena, a decision make must simply be more sure than not that the facts are correct, however by the criminal standard, a decision maker must have no reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of each and every element of the offence.

It is said that if there is any reasonable doubt or any element of the offence, it is the duty of that Judge, Magistrate or Jury to find the defendant not guilty.

Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in the Queensland and wider Australian legal system.

Conclusion

This article is a simple and concise outline of a deeply complex and in some ways undefinable principle. Reasonable Doubt will turn on the individual facts of each case and bears significant consideration.

If you have been charged with a Criminal or Traffic Offence, seek legal advice of your rights and options with respect of the charges which have been laid.

What happens if I breach my probation or community service order?

If you have been sentenced in Court to a period of Probation or a Community Service Order, you are required to comply with the requirements of that order, with the big-ticket items being to not commit further offences whilst on an order, to report when require and/or complete any community service hours as ordered.

If you fall afoul of these and other requirements, you have committed an offence of breaching a probation order / Community Service Order.  The offence of breaching these orders  is considered a serious offence, not because of the maximum penalty specific to the offence under s123 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, however because of the power the court has if a breach is brought to the court.

What does the law say?

• An offender who contravenes, without reasonable excuse, a requirement of a community based order commits an offence.

Penalty— Maximum penalty—10 penalty units.

• Subsection (1) applies—

(a) whether or not the contravention is an offence against another Act or law; and

(b) whether the contravention happens in or out of Queensland.

What does the prosecution need to prove?

Unlike most criminal or traffic offences, the Queensland Police Service do not prosecute the breach probation order offences, that is done by a legal officer from Queensland Corrective Services.

Queensland Corrective Services must prove that an offender, was:

1. subject to a community based order; and
2. the offender, without a reasonable excuse has contravened a requirement of the community based order.

The elements of the offences are simple and usually fairly easily made out.

Are there any defences?

The primary defence to breaching a Community Based Order is effectively, whether you had a reasonable excuse not to comply with a requirement. This could look like an illness or injury which prevented you from attending – although in these circumstances you have obligations to advise that you cannot attend.

What are the usual penalties for this offence?

The offence of contravene requirement of a community based order itself is quite minor, being a maximum fine of 10 penalty units. 

It is the power that is enlivened when a breach is proven which becomes the significant issue for offenders.

The court has the power to increase the number of community service hours an offender has to complete (is applicable), extend the period of probation by 12 months or at the more serious end may do two things:

1. If the order was originally made by a Magistrates Court, they may resentence the offender for the offences they originally received the community based order for; or

2. If the order was made by a superior court, such as Supreme or District Court, the court may:

   1. Commit the offender to custody; or

   2. Grant the offender bail on the condition they appear before the superior sentencing court – where they will be resentenced.

What does this offending look like?

This offence can arise in a number of situations, ranging from failing to update the Community Corrections Officer of a change of address within 2 business days to much more serious breaches of committing further offences.

Example 1. Bill was sentenced in Brisbane to a period of probation for 12 months. During the period of probation, Bill wasn’t particularly receptive to supervision and failed to report to Community Corrections when required. Bill failed to attend 3 times and his probation officer commenced breach proceedings against him. Community Corrections issued a summons and Bill had to attend court to on a Breach of Probation in the Cleveland MagistrtesC Ourt. The court determined that it was a minor breach and made the decision to fine Bill for the breach and extend his probation by 6 months.

Example 2. Regina was sentenced by the Supreme Court to a period of Probation for 2 years. During this time, Regina is brought before the court for a series of drug possession offences which caused her to contravene the conditions of her probation order. The Court deals with the matters in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction of Southport and Community Corrections takes a breach action against her. As a result of the Breach action, the Magistrates Court commits the matter to the Supreme Court, and gives her bail on the undertaking that she appears to be sentenced in the Supreme Court.

These are just two examples of how this offending can occur, it encompasses a wide range of circumstances which can arise when community based orders aren’t followed. It is important to take these orders seriously and get legal advice if Community Corrections decide to pursue you for a breach offence.

What court will hear my matter?

The matter will always start in the Magistrates Court. The Contravention offence will be dealt with by the Magistrate’s Court, however, resentences will occur in a higher court if that is where the order was originally made.

Why should I get legal advice if I am going to be resentenced?

The short answer to this question, is to put your best legal foot forward and identify if it is necessary for the court to resentence for the breach. If the court determines that resentencing is necessary, taking advice of experienced practitioners puts you in the best possible position.

Conclusion

This article by no means covers the entire suite of situations and outcomes that arise out of a contravention of a community based order offence. This article is designed to assist those who are facing this offence to get a better understanding of the offence, their options and critically empower them to ask the right questions of their legal representatives.

Engaging Clarity Law to act for you

Engaging us gives you the best chance at trying to avoid serving time in prison.   We are one of the leading criminal law firms in South East Queensland.  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 an actual prison sentence

3. we are there to help you through the process and make everything as stress free as possible

4. engaging us shows the court you are taking your charges seriously

5. you will be fully informed of what is to happen in court and what this means for you after court

6. unlike the police or the Judge, we are there to look after you, your privacy and your interests

How do I get more information or engage you to act for me? 

If you want to engage us or just need further free 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. Click hereto select a time for us to have a free 15 minute telephone conference with you

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

5. Send us a message on Facebook Messenger

6. Click the help button at the bottom right and leave us a message

We are a no pressure law firm, we are happy to provide free initial information to assist you. If you want to engage us then great, we will give you a fixed price for our services so you will know with certainty what we will cost. All the money goes into a trust account monitored by the Queensland Law Society and cannot be taken out without your permission or until we are legally allowed to.

Criminal cases in Queensland can be incredibly complex, and charges involving threats carry significant weight and potential repercussions. Threat charges, as outlined in Section 359 of Queensland's Criminal Code are very serious. This comprehensive guide is designed to provide detailed insights into the gravity of these charges, the penalties that can be imposed, and how individuals can protect their rights and understand the intricacies of the law.

Understanding the Charge

Section 359 of Queensland's Criminal Code addresses the act of threatening a person to cause detriment with the intent to prevent or hinder them, compel them to act, or cause public alarm or anxiety. Such a charge, when proven in court, can result in severe penalties and is treated with the utmost seriousness by the legal system.

The Prosecution's Burden of Proof

When a threat charge is brought before the court, the prosecution must meet several conditions to secure a conviction. These include proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the threat, as well as demonstrating the intent behind the threat and the resulting circumstance of harm or public concern.

In general the prosecution must prove;

1. The defendant threatened to cause a detriment to another.
2. With intent to:

• prevent or hinder any person from doing any act which the other person is lawfully entitled to do; or
• compel any person to do any act which the other person islawfully entitled to abstain from doing; or
• cause public alarm or anxiety.

The Meaning of Threatened

The definition of 'threatens' is given its ordinary meaning, and a threat must be of such a nature and extent that it might intimidate or cause apprehension in an ordinary person. Furthermore, Section 359 requires that the threat be made with specific intentions and against specific individuals or members of the community.

The Meaning of Detriment

"detriment" includes the following—

(a) apprehension or fear of violence to, or against property of, the stalked person or another person;

(b) serious mental, psychological or emotional harm;

(c) prevention or hindrance from doing an act a person is lawfully entitled to do;

(d) compulsion to do an act a person is lawfully entitled to abstain from doing.

Examples—

A person no longer walks outside the person’s place of residence or employment.
A person significantly changes the route or form of transport the person would ordinarily use to travel to work or other places.

A person sells a property the person would not otherwise sell.

Circumstances of Aggravation

Certain factors, known as circumstances of aggravation, can intensify a threat charge. These involve making a threat to a law enforcement officer or an individual assisting with law enforcement duties, particularly when related to the investigation of a criminal organization.

Circumstances of aggravation have a sobering effect on the severity of a threat charge, and they can lead to heightened penalties upon conviction. Defendants must approach these aspects of the law with the utmost seriousness and strategic legal guidance tailored to their specific case.

Penalty for Threats

The maximum penalty for making a threat is 5 years imprisonment.  If however the threat is to a police officer investigating a criminal organisation the maximum penalty increases to 10 years imprisonment.

Which Court Hears the Charge?

While the charge will first start in the Magistrates court it must be finalised in the District Court.

Defending Against Threat Charges

Facing a threat charge is a daunting prospect, but it is not without avenues of defence. Each case is unique, and the defence strategy must be built on the individual facts and circumstances surrounding the charge.

Some possible defences might include;

• It was not the defendant who made the threat or the police cannot prove it was the defendant;
• The words or actions were not in fact a threat
• No threat to cause detriment was made
• There was no intention by the defendant to prevent, hinder, cause alarm or anxiety to the other person

Engage an Experienced Lawyer

The most vital initial step for anyone confronted with a threat charge is to seek legal advice from a seasoned professional adept at navigating Queensland's criminal justice system. An experienced lawyer can provide invaluable insights, helping to formulate a comprehensive defence strategy and ensuring that the individual's rights and interests are protected.

Conclusion

The charge of threats under Section 359 of Queensland's Criminal Code is a profoundly serious matter, with the potential to impact individuals on multiple levels. It is a complex charge, drawing a fine line between protected speech and the law's protection of individuals and public order.

For those navigating the intricate details and potential ramifications of a threat charge, the guidance of an experienced legal partner can make a significant difference in the process and the ultimate outcome.

In the complex landscape of criminal law, the charges of forgery and uttering stand out for their nuanced legal definitions and significant implications for the accused. Under section 488 of the Criminal Code in Queensland, these charges are treated with utmost seriousness, reflecting the potential harm to individuals and the broader societal trust in the integrity of documents and records. This blog aims to demystify the legal intricacies of forgery and uttering.

What Constitutes Forgery?

At its core, forgery involves the creation, alteration, or manipulation of a document with the intent to deceive or defraud. The legal definition encapsulates a range of actions that result in a document falsely purporting to be something it is not, whether by presenting itself as authorised by a non-consenting individual or as originating from a non-existent entity. The term "document" is broadly defined to include any written, coded, or symbolically marked medium capable of conveying meaning, thereby encompassing both tangible and digital records.

Legal Elements of Forgery

To secure a conviction for forgery, the prosecution must demonstrate two critical elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Act of Forgery: The accused must have engaged in making, altering, or dealing with a document in a manner that misrepresents its authenticity, origin, or authority. This encompasses actions that suggest a document was authorised by someone who did not give such authority, or that alter a document’s appearance or content to misrepresent its true nature.

2. Intent to Defraud: The essence of forgery lies in the intent to practise fraud upon another, which is established if the forgery could potentially prejudice any individual's rights or compel them to act against their duty or interest. Crucially, the intent to defraud does not necessitate an aim to cause financial loss, broadening the scope of actions considered fraudulent.

The Charge of Uttering

Uttering, closely related to forgery, involves knowingly passing off a forged document as genuine, with the intention of deceiving someone into accepting it as legitimate. Like forgery, the offence of uttering hinges on the intent to defraud, underscoring the perpetrator’s aim to leverage the forged document to deceive and potentially harm others.

In essence Forgery is the creation of a false document while uttering is the act of using that forged documents to defraud another person.

Defences

The main defences for forgery or uttering would likely be;

1. The defendant did not, or at least the prosecutor cannot prove that the defendant forged a document
2. That the document was not in fact forged
3. That if the document was forged the document was not uttered
4. If the document was forged and was uttered that the defendant did not do it with an intention to defraud.

Penalty

The maximum penalty for forgery and uttering is 3 years in prison.  If however the document was a power of attorney or document issued by a lawful authority the maximum penalty increases to 7 years.

If the forgery involved a security, insurance policy, will or birth certificate the maximum penalty increases to 14 years.

Which Court hears the Forgery Charge?

The Magistrates courts hears the charge.

Relevant Cases

In the case of R v Perrin [2017] QCA 194, the appellant, Mr. Perrin, appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge failed to leave an exculpatory provision for the jury’s consideration. The provision stated that a person is not criminally responsible if they act in the exercise of an honest claim of right.

The appeal was dismissed as proof of the offences precluded the application of the provision. The charges stemmed from transactions with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia involving forged signatures. The appellant argued that he had authority to sign the documents on behalf of his wife. However, the court held that proof of dishonesty in the offences negated the possibility of an honest claim of right defence. Additionally, the jury directions were deemed adequate. Both grounds of appeal were dismissed.

Conclusion

In Queensland, forgery and uttering are serious charges with significant legal implications. Forgery involves creating or altering a document with the intent to deceive, while uttering is knowingly passing off a forged document as genuine. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove the act of forgery and the intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defences may include disputing the act of forgery or uttering, or challenging the intent to defraud. Penalties for forgery and uttering vary based on the type of document involved, with maximum sentences ranging from 3 to 14 years. These charges are heard in the Magistrates Court.

For those facing allegations of forgery or uttering, it is crucial to consult with legal professionals who can provide expert advice and representation, ensuring that the accused's rights are fully protected and upheld within the legal system.

In an era where public safety is paramount, the law takes a severe stance against actions that threaten communal well-being. Among these, the offence of making a bomb hoax is treated with particular severity. Under section 321A of the Queensland Criminal Code, the act of misleading others into believing that a dangerous or destructive substance is present, constitutes a serious crime.

This blog post aims to dissect the legal framework surrounding bomb hoaxes in Queensland, offering insights into its consequences and highlighting a pivotal case to underscore the judiciary's approach to such offences.

The Law

Section 321A of the Criminal Code articulates the offence of bomb hoaxes, outlining the necessary elements that constitute this crime. The law is clear: anyone who falsely claims or suggests that an explosive or harmful substance has been placed in a location within Queensland commits a criminal offence. The legislative intent is to deter individuals from inducing panic or fear through misinformation, a goal that aligns with broader societal aims of ensuring public safety and order.

The statute mandates a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment for those found guilty of stating that a bomb exists while someone who sends or places an article or substance designed to make people think it is a bomb faces a maximum 7 years in prison.

Legal Requirements for Conviction

There are two separate charges under the act;

• People who send or place a substance designed to look or act like a bomb (section 321A(1))
• People who just say that a bomb is in a particular location (section 321A(2))

Lets look at each charge.

Sending or placing a fake bomb

The law states it is an offence nny person who—

(a) places an article or substance in any place; or

(b) sends an article or substance in any way;

with the intention of inducing in another person a belief that the article or substance is likely to explode, ignite, or discharge a dangerous or noxious substance, commits a crime.

The maximum penalty is 7 years in prison.

To be found guilty of the offence the prosecution would need to prove that:

• The defendant placed or sent the article (or substance) in the place; and

• The defendant intended to induce in another person a belief that the article (or substance) was likely to explode (or ignite or discharge a dangerous or noxious substance)

It is not necessary that the prosecution prove that some particular person was intended to be induced to the belief. It is sufficient that the defendant intended any other person or persons to be induced to that belief.

It is immaterial that the article (or substance) was not in fact likely to explode (or ignite or discharge a dangerous or noxious substance).

Saying there is a bomb

For a conviction under section 321A(2), the prosecution must satisfy three critical criteria beyond reasonable doubt:

1. The Act of Making a False Statement: It must be proven that the defendant intentionally conveyed false information or made a statement to another individual.

2. Knowledge of Falsity: The individual accused of the hoax must have known, or believed, the information or statement to be false at the time of communication.

3. Intent to Induce Belief in the Threat: There must be a clear intention behind the defendant's actions to make another person believe that an explosive, noxious substance, or other dangerous items are present in a place within Queensland.

It is noteworthy that the perpetrator's location during the commission of the offence is irrelevant under the statute, placing emphasis on the conveyed threat's impact rather than the defendant's physical presence.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment.

A Notable Case:

The case of R v Tobin [2008] QCA 54 involved an appeal against a sentence in the Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal. The appellant, Martin Francis Anthony Tobin, was convicted on his pleas of guilty to two counts of bomb threats. Initially, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years. However, the sentence was appealed on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive considering the circumstances, including significant mitigating factors and the fact that the bomb threat was not taken seriously.

The appeal was allowed, and the Court ordered that no conviction be recorded. Instead, Tobin was sentenced to probation for six months with conditions, including compliance with anger management and alcohol management as directed by an authorized Corrective Services Officer. 

Which Courts hears the charge?

While the matter starts in the Magistrates court it must be finalised in the District Court.

Are there any defences to a bomb hoax charge?

Possible defences include;

• It was not the defendant who made the false statement about the bomb or planted the article pretending to be a bomb or the police cant prove it was

• The defendant did not intend anyone to believe there was a bomb

• Mistake of fact

Childrens Court

Children (those under 18 years old) are often charged with this offence especially when it involves a bomb hoax at a school.

Children are treated differently than adults and go through the children’s court and not the adult courts.

The charge is however treated very seriously by the children’s court.

Conclusion

If you are charged with making bomb hoax it is critical that you get legal advice BEFORE talking to the police.  Never ever talk to police without first getting legal advice.

A key component of the charge is the intention to make people believe a bomb exists and if you say the wrong thing to the police this may be easy to prove.

Engaging Clarity Law to act for you

Engaging us gives you the best chance at trying to avoid serving time in prison.   We are one of the leading criminal law firms in South East Queensland.  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 an actual prison sentence

3. we are there to help you through the process and make everything as stress free as possible

4. engaging us shows the court you are taking your charges seriously

5. you will be fully informed of what is to happen in court and what this means for you after court

6. unlike the police or the Judge, we are there to look after you, your privacy and your interests

How do I get more information or engage you to act for me? 

If you want to engage us or just need further free 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 255seven days a week, 7am to 7pm

3. Click here to select a time for us to have a free 15 minute telephone conference with you

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

5. Send us a message on Facebook Messenger

6. Click the help button at the bottom right and leave us a message

We are a no pressure law firm, we are happy to provide free initial information to assist you. If you want to engage us then great, we will give you a fixed price for our services so you will know with certainty what we will cost. All the money goes into a trust account monitored by the Queensland Law Society and cannot be taken out without your permission or until we are legally allowed to.

It is unsurprisingly that it is an offence in Queensland to urinate in a public place, it is an offence that is broadly considered that interferes with the publics peaceful and lawful use of a public place.  It is gnerally considered to be a type of public nuisance offence.

The police can issue an infringent notice for this offence or summon a person to court to face a public urination charge.

There is considerable debate whether the charge of public urination should be removed.

What exactly does the law say about this offence?

Urinating in a public place is an offence under against section 7 of the Summary Offences Act 2005 under Queensland criminal law.

The law states that A person must not urinate in a public place.

  Maximum penalty—

1. if the person urinates within licensed premises, or in the vicinity of licensed premises—4 penalty units; or
2. otherwise—2 penalty units.
3. In a proceeding for an offence against subsection (1), evidence that liquid was seen to be discharged from the vicinity of a person’s pelvic area is enough evidence that the person was urinating.
4. In this section— public place does not include a facility in a public place that is designed for use as a toilet.

What do the Prosecution have to prove?

This is an offence which is extremely clear, and has quite basic fault elements.

The Police have to prove:

1. The defendant;

2. Urinated (or at least, liquid was observed to be seen being discharged from a person pelvic area); and

3. That they did so in a public place, noting that this includes a place which is open to the public whether or not on payment of a fee.

 A person committs the offence if those elements can be proven.

What does this offence look like in practice?

It is quite plain, this offence usually eventuates in the vicinity of a licenced premises, for the obvious reasons.

This offence could eventuate when a person in a public park or hiking trail, unable to locate a toilet decides to urinate against a tree or bush.

What about my rear left tire?

There has persisted, a myth that in the absence of a publicly available toilet, that a person can urinate on the rear left tire of their vehicle. Let it be absolutely plain – this is a legal fiction, this law or exemption does not exist.

What is the likely outcome for this type of offence?

Section 7 of the Summary Offences Act outlines that this offence is only punishable by a fine. If the offence occurs within or in the vicinity of a licenced premises then 4 penalty units (at the date of publication being $619.20) otherwise 2 penalty units (at the date of publication being $309.60) – noting that penalty units increased each year on 1 July.

This matter, depending on the age, character and circumstances of the offender, could be dealt with by the imposition of a recognisance upon entering into a good behaviour bond.

What court will hear my matter?

This matter must be dealt with in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction where the offence occurred. It is possible, if necessary to have this matter transferred to a different jurisdiction, however it is not a guarantee that this will occur.

Are there any defences?

The simple answer is yes.  There are a number of defences that are available, including but not limited to:

1. The alleged act was not in or near a public place;

2. The defendant did not urinate;

3. The defendant was in fact not the person whom is alleged to have committed the act (identification issue).

 It would not gnerally be a reasonable excuse to say you had no other options on where to urinate unless you had a medical condition.

Why should I choose you and not just represent myself?

Just some reasons include;

1. we know the Magistrates and what they want to hear to give you the best outcome for a wilful exposure charge

2. we have good relationships with the police prosecutors meaning we can often have them agree to the sentence we are asking the court to impose

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 magistrate, we are there to look after you, your privacy and your interests

Our experienced solicitors understand the sensitivity and potential embarrassment this charge may have on someone, any conversation had with our office is strictly confidential, with as few eyes on your file as necessary.

Conclusion
This article is by no means an exhaustive guide to this offence, but stands as a handy ready reckoner for someone looking for more information on or being charged with the offence. If you are charged with the offence, please contact our office for a free initial consultation.

How do I get more information or engage Clarity Law to act for me? 

If you want to engage us or just need further information or advice then you can either;

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

• Book a time for us to call you

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

• Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In Queensland, 'Deprivation of Liberty' is a serious charge that encompasses unlawfully confining or detaining a person against their will. This offence is particularly sensitive because it infringes on the fundamental human right to freedom of movement. If you find yourself accused of this charge, it is crucial to understand what it entails legally and the consequences you may be facing.

The Origin of the Law

Deprivation of liberty offenses arise under various laws and statutes in Queensland, which are part of the larger framework of Australian criminal law that seeks to protect individuals from harm and protect their rights. This legal concept has evolved through case law, where past judgments have shaped the understanding and application of what amounts to deprivation of one's liberty.

The Law

Section 355 of the Criminal Code states that

355 Deprivation of liberty

Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other person’s will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other person’s personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years

What does the Prosecution have to prove?

The prosecution must prove that:

1.      The defendant:

• confined or detained another in any place against the other person’s will; or
• otherwise deprived another of the other person’s personal liberty.

2.      The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or excused by law.

Definitions

Detain means keep in confinement or under restraint. Restraint can be exercised by threats. The defendant does not have to use force or physical restraints. If the defendant compels the person by threats to remain in a place against that person’s will, that is sufficient. Depriving of liberty simply means taking away the free choice of a person to move about as he or she wants.

Unlawfully Deprives includes the denial of enjoyment of something.

Personal Liberty is ‘the condition of being able to act in any desired way without restraint; power to do as one likes.’ Unlawfully deprives means taking away the free choice of a person to move about as he or she wants. A person may be deprived of their liberty not only against their will but also where the deprivation was achieved by fraud, done without knowledge or where the complainant lacks capacity.

Which Court hears the charge?

The matter is dealt with in the Magstrates court where the offence occurred.

Defences to the Charge

Every individual is entitled to a defence, and in the context of a deprivation of liberty charge, several defences may be applicable depending on the circumstances of the case. For example:

• Consent: If the person alleged to be deprived of their liberty consented to the restrictions, this could be a viable defence.

• Lawful Authority: Actions taken under lawful authority, such as those by police officers or under mental health laws, or parents lawfully dealing with their children may not constitute unlawful deprivation.

• Mistake: A genuine mistake about the legal status or entitlement to confine another person may at times be a defence.

However, it's important to note that every case is unique and the success of such defences depends greatly on the specific facts of your case.

Penalties

The maximum penalty is 3 years in prison.

The penalty for deprivation of liberty depends on a number of factors including

• The circumstances of why the offence occurred

• What exactly happened

• Was any violence threaten or used

• The defendants criminal history

• Whether the parties were in a domestic relationship

• How long the offending lasted

• Whether other charges like an assault charge or breach of a DVO is also bought.

While the maximum penalty would be rare In about 50% of cases before the courts a term of imprisonment is imposed but the court can in appropriate circumstances choose to suspended that or release a person on probation without them serving any actual time in prison.

If the offence involved people in a domestic relationship the police or the courts may issue a domestic violence order or vary an existing one.

Case Example of the charge of Deprivation of Liberty Charge Queensland

In R v East the defendant was found guilty of deprivation of liberty when he locked 2 federal police officers in his businesses reception when they were there trying to serve official documents.

In R v Adams the defendant pleaded guilty of deprivation of liberty after he entered a liquor store and locked the automatic door trapping two staff members inside until the police arrived.

What if a Police Officer wants to talk to me?

Never talk to the police without getting legal advice first. Its rare you can explain a situation away and even if you are innocent or have a defence you can make the situation worse by talking to the police.

Read more with our article: Police Questioning and your Right to Silence

Legal Representation Matters

If you are facing a charge for deprivation of liberty, the importance of seeking experienced legal representation cannot be overstated. Legal professionals specializing in criminal law, such as Clarity Law, possess the expertise necessary to provide valuable guidance and build a robust strategy, tailored to the specifics of your case.

For anyone charged with or accused of deprivation of liberty in Queensland, remember that this article serves merely to inform and should not be taken as legal advice. Every situation is unique and demands the personalized attention of a professional. If you require assistance or more information, it is recommended that you contact a legal practitioner who can provide specific guidance related to your case, what the law is, how the offence is dealt with in the Magistrates Court and whether you will have any defences to the offence or if negotiations with the prosecutor is possible.

For immediate assistance, you can reach out to Clarity Law at 1300 952 255 for support from a team of dedicated lawyers who pride themselves on ensuring that good people make it through tough times.

Engaging Clarity Law to act for you

Engaging us gives you the best chance at trying to avoid serving time in prison.   We are one of the leading criminal law firms in South East Queensland.  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 an actual prison sentence

3. we are there to help you through the process and make everything as stress free as possible

4. engaging us shows the court you are taking your charges seriously

5. you will be fully informed of what is to happen in court and what this means for you after court

6. unlike the police or the Judge, we are there to look after you, your privacy and your interests

How do I get more information or engage you to act for me? 

If you want to engage us or just need further free 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 255seven days a week, 7am to 7pm

3. Click hereto select a time for us to have a free 15 minute telephone conference with you

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

5. Send us a message on Facebook Messenger

6. Click the help button at the bottom right and leave us a message

We are a no pressure law firm, we are happy to provide free initial information to assist you. If you want to engage us then great, we will give you a fixed price for our services so you will know with certainty what we will cost. All the money goes into a trust account monitored by the Queensland Law Society and cannot be taken out without your permission or until we are legally allowed to.