Theoretically, our system of criminal justice is set up to give the best possible chance to an innocent person to avoid a criminal conviction. If you are falsely accused of a crime there are strategies to give you the best defence.

Fundamental Principles

There are a few fundamental principles that are intended to act as safeguards in the event of a falsely accused person. They are called:

• Innocent until proven guilty,
• The burden of proof,
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

This means exactly what it sounds like: an accused person is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty of a charge. The prosecution must prove the charge through admissible evidence. This evidence can be witness statements, CCTV, forensics, documentary evidence, photographs, or even the accused person's own confession.

 

The burden of proof.

The prosecution must prove the charges against the defendant. This is known as the burden of proof, because they have the burden of proving their case. The defendant does not have to prove anything. If the defendant wishes, he can try to set up a positive case proving his innocence. But the jury is not allowed to draw an adverse inference against him if he chooses not to do that.

 

Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This means the prosecution must prove their case to such an extent that the jury is left with no reasonable doubt about the person's guilt. It isn’t that the accused might be guilty or is even probably guilty, but the jury must be left without any sensible doubt of their guilt.

 

Interview

Nine times out of 10, our advice is for you not to give an interview to police. There are various reasons for this. One of the big ones is, if the police don’t have enough evidence, or have very thin evidence, but then you give an interview, there is a possibility you will say something self-incriminating. Most police are seasoned interrogators, and in our experience, it is only on TV programs that a defendant manages to outsmart or bamboozle police in an interview. Think about it: they interview suspects as part of their day job; you may have never even interacted with police before this moment. So, you are already at a distinct disadvantage.

However, there may be rare instances where giving an interview is the right move. You do not want to try this without legal advice and without a lawyer attending with you. For example, if you are accused of being at East Brisbane on the night of the alleged offence, but you can prove you were at Toowoomba that night, then it may be worth confirming that early with police in an interview. But as I said earlier, this would only be in rare cases and after careful consideration with legal advice. There is a chance in giving the interview that police will not choose to charge you because of what you tell them or what you can prove to them.

If you want to learn more see our article on your right to silence.

 

Negotiations

If you are charged, then the next port of call is to negotiate with the prosecutors. The intention here is to persuade them to drop the charge(s) against you. There are various ways this can be argued: either they have a lack of evidence, or you are able to present evidence that shows your innocence. For example, we had a client who was charged with drink driving. The car was parked in a car park, the client was seated in the passenger seat, and the car was registered to a different owner. We were able to present a statutory declaration from the client’s friend that he in fact drove his car to the location with our client as a passenger, and then left our client in the car while he went and got himself a haircut. Police confirmed the car belonged to our client’s friend, had no evidence that contradicted the friend’s statutory declaration, and therefore decided to drop the charge.

The above is a simple example of negotiations, but the point is they can be essential in getting you out of wrongly laid charges.

Check out our article on negotiating with a prosecutor.

 

Disclosure

The accused is legally entitled to ask for disclosure from the prosecution. What this means is we will ask the prosecution to provide us with all of the evidence they have in their possession to do with the case, whether helpful to the prosecution or helpful to the defence. Disclosure can include conferencing notes with witnesses, the internal police narrative on their database, criminal histories of prosecution witnesses, among others. With the widespread use of body worn camera footage, this can occasionally be quite helpful for a defendant. It may show a rather different version of events than what is reported in the police version of the facts.

Obtaining disclosure and analysing it carefully is critical, because it can provide an advantage to a defendant for negotiations or for trial. For example, internal police notes may show that their main prosecution witness has made allegations against other people previously and that those allegations had not been prosecuted due to insufficient evidence. Or perhaps a prosecution witness’s criminal history shows they are a person of poor character. Sometimes you might even strike gold with body worn footage and it may capture illegal police conduct which allows for the exclusion of certain evidence.

In any case, in an instance where you are falsely accused of an offence, you want the prosecution to give you everything they have which they say proves their case, so we can search for inconsistencies, or, if they don't have much evidence, then we can start to set up a an affirmative case against their case to make our case look much stronger than theirs.

 

Trial

Sometimes, despite our best efforts, the prosecution stubbornly presses on with the charges and forces us to take the case to trial. It is an unfortunate reality that they can press on with a weak case right up to the week before a trial. In the meantime, the poor defendant is losing sleep with stress and worry about his fate. Nevertheless, there will be times where an innocent person will have to take the case all the way to the conclusion of a trial. A trial means there will be a judge and jury, and the jury must decide if the defendant is guilty of the offences ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

For a trial, preparation is half the battle. That means we come to court prepared with a case strategy, with a comprehensive version of your instructions, a carefully constructed case plan which breaks down all the weaknesses in the prosecution case, and ways in which to best exploit those weaknesses. In a sexual assault case, the defence case theory may be “it was consensual”. Then the defence strategy would centre around trying to show that the evidence supports the defence case.

Obviously, every case is different, and it can only really be with expert legal advice and representation that you can properly set yourself up for a trial if you are forced to take it all the way to the end.

 

Conclusion

The foregoing is only a brief overview of the different things you can do, and the different strategies you can try if you are wrongly accused of an offence. To have the best chance possible, you are going to need experienced lawyers. Clarity Law does no legal aid cases. That mean all attention will be focused on giving you the best defence possible. Our aim will always be to get a favourable outcome without the need of going to trial. But if a trial becomes necessary, then we have the experience to do the best preparation and give you the best chance possible.

 

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

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

4. Email 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 information to assist you, if you want to engage us then great, if not then you at least have more information.

 

Other articles that may be of interest

• Supplying dangerous drugs
• Your right to silence
• Negotiating with a Prosecutor in Queensland
• Court character references
• The difference between a conviction and non-conviction
• Declining a police interview 

Brief of Evidence in Queensland: What It Is and Why It Matters

Written and reviewed by Steven Brough, Founder and Principal of Clarity Law
Last updated: 4 September 2026

Steven was admitted as a solicitor in Queensland in 2001 and has represented clients in criminal and traffic matters throughout Queensland for more than 25 years.

---

Brief of Evidence — quick answer

A Brief of Evidence is the collection of evidence assembled by the prosecution to prove a criminal charge in Queensland. Depending on the case, it can include witness statements, CCTV, police body-worn camera footage, recorded interviews, photographs, phone records, forensic results and expert evidence.

It is different from a QP9, which generally gives you a summary of what police allege happened rather than all of the underlying evidence.

Not every criminal matter needs a full brief. But where the charge is serious, the facts are disputed, or the evidence needs to be tested properly, reviewing the Brief of Evidence can be critical before deciding whether to plead guilty, negotiate with the prosecution or defend the charge.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence in Queensland, one of the most important questions is often:

What is the evidence?

A police officer may charge you based on an allegation, and a QP9 may summarise what police say happened. But the real issue is whether the prosecution actually has the evidence needed to prove the charge.

That is where a Brief of Evidence becomes important.

In some cases, the Brief confirms the police version.

In others, it reveals problems with the case — inconsistencies, missing evidence, unreliable witnesses, or material that does not support the charge as strongly as the QP9 suggests.

That is why, in the right case, reviewing the Brief of Evidence can make a major difference to how the matter should proceed.

What is a Brief of Evidence?

A Brief of Evidence is the body of material assembled by the prosecution to prove a criminal charge.

Depending on the case, it may include:

• witness statements;
• police statements;
• complainant statements;
• CCTV footage;
• police body-worn camera footage;
• photographs;
• video or audio recordings;
• records of interview;
• 000 recordings;
• phone records;
• text messages;
• social media material;
• forensic results;
• DNA or fingerprint evidence;
• medical material;
• expert reports;
• drug analysis certificates;
• maps, diagrams or scene photographs; and
• other documents or exhibits relied upon by the prosecution.

Some briefs are relatively short.

Others are enormous.

A simple charge might involve only a handful of statements and some CCTV. A more serious matter may involve large volumes of electronic evidence, forensic material, expert reports and many hours of footage.

The size of the brief matters far less than what it shows.

 

Why is a Brief of Evidence important?

Because it allows the charge to be tested against the actual evidence.

A criminal charge is not proved simply because police allege something occurred.

The prosecution must prove the charge using admissible evidence.

Until the evidence is examined, it can be very difficult to know:

• whether the prosecution can prove the offence;
• whether important facts are disputed;
• whether witnesses are reliable;
• whether video or audio material helps or hurts the case;
• whether the charge is too serious for what the evidence actually shows; or
• whether there is a basis to negotiate the charge or facts.

This is often the difference between reacting to an allegation and properly assessing a case.

What is the difference between a QP9 and a Brief of Evidence?

This is one of the most common points of confusion.

A QP9 is usually a police summary of the charge and the facts police allege.

A Brief of Evidence is the material police and the prosecution say proves those allegations.

In simple terms:

• the QP9 tells you what police say happened;
• the Brief of Evidence contains the material they say proves it.

For example, a QP9 might say that a person assaulted another person outside a hotel.

The Brief of Evidence might then include:

• the complainant’s statement;
• witness statements;
• CCTV footage from the venue;
• police body-worn camera footage;
• photographs of any injuries; and
• any admissions allegedly made by the accused.

The difference matters because a QP9 is only a summary. It may be incomplete, imprecise, or written in a way that makes the case sound stronger than it really is. Sometimes the actual evidence supports the allegation. Sometimes it does not.

If you want to understand the QP9 itself, see our guide:

 

 

If you received a QP9 or Brief of Evidence?
Call 1300 952 255. We can review what you have, explain what evidence matters, and tell you what the next step should be.

Is a Brief of Evidence the same as disclosure?

Not exactly.

A Brief of Evidence is usually the material assembled to support the prosecution case.

Disclosure can be wider than that.

In relevant criminal proceedings, the prosecution may also have obligations to disclose material in its possession that is not necessarily central to its own case but may still be relevant to the accused person or assist the defence.

That means the important question is not always just:

“What is in the brief?”

It can also be:

“What is missing?”

For example:

• a witness may mention CCTV that has not been provided;
• body-worn camera footage may exist but not yet be disclosed;
• a forensic result may still be outstanding;
• a 000 recording may be referred to but not included; or
• a witness referred to by others may not yet have provided a statement.

A lawyer reviewing the case should be thinking not only about the material received, but also about whether further material should be obtained.

Does every criminal case need a full Brief of Evidence?

No.

There are some straightforward matters where a full brief is unlikely to change the advice.

For example, if a person accepts the essential facts, the charge is relatively simple, and the case is clearly going to proceed by way of an early guilty plea, waiting for a large brief may simply delay the matter without providing much practical benefit.

But in other cases, obtaining and reviewing the Brief of Evidence is very important.

That is especially so where:

• the client denies the offence;
• important facts are disputed;
• there may be a defence;
• CCTV or body-worn camera footage exists;
• identification is in issue;
• the charge is serious;
• the consequences are significant;
• the prosecution version appears inaccurate or incomplete; or
• there may be room to negotiate the charge or the facts.

The question is not whether every case needs a brief.

The question is whether this case does.

When is a Brief of Evidence particularly important?

A detailed evidence review is often important where:

• the client says the allegations are false;
• the client agrees something happened but disputes how it happened;
• self-defence may arise;
• identification is uncertain;
• there are conflicting witness accounts;
• the prosecution relies heavily on one witness;
• there is CCTV or recorded footage;
• there are text messages, phone records or social media evidence;
• medical or forensic evidence is important;
• the charge may proceed on indictment;
• the matter could affect employment, travel, licensing or reputation; or
• the prosecution version needs to be tested before a plea decision is made.

The more serious the allegation, the more dangerous it can be to make decisions without properly understanding the evidence.

What does a criminal lawyer look for in a Brief of Evidence?

Reviewing a Brief of Evidence is not just a matter of reading documents.

The real task is to compare the evidence with what the prosecution must legally prove.

That involves asking questions such as:

• Does the evidence prove each element of the offence?
• Are the witness accounts consistent?
• Does the CCTV support the allegations?
• Does the body-worn camera help or hurt the prosecution?
• Are there contradictions between the statements and the objective evidence?
• Has anyone changed their version over time?
• Is anything important missing?
• Is the charge itself supported by the evidence?

A case may sound serious in the QP9 but be much weaker when properly analysed.

Equally, a client may think the case is not strong, only for the objective evidence to strongly support the prosecution.

That is why the review has to be systematic and legally focused.

 

1. Are the witness statements consistent?

Witnesses often describe events differently.

That does not automatically mean anyone is lying. People can observe the same incident from different angles and remember different things.

But significant inconsistencies can be very important.

We compare what each witness says against:

• other witness statements;
• the complainant’s account;
• police observations;
• CCTV or body-worn camera;
• phone records;
• photographs; and
• other objective material.

2. Does the objective evidence support the allegations?

CCTV, body-worn camera footage, photographs and electronic records can be extremely important.

Sometimes they strongly support the allegation.

Sometimes they contradict a witness account in an important way.

Sometimes they show that the incident happened, but in a way that does not justify the exact charge laid by police.

Objective evidence often matters more than any single person's version of events.

3. Has anyone changed their version?

A witness may give an initial account and later provide a fuller statement.

A complainant may tell one version to police at the scene and another version later.

A difference does not always destroy a case, but it can be highly relevant.

One of the important parts of a proper review is identifying where accounts have shifted, expanded or become more certain over time.

4. Is anything missing?

Sometimes the biggest issue is not what is in the brief, but what is not.

There may be:

• missing CCTV;
• missing body-worn camera footage;
• missing forensic results;
• outstanding phone downloads;
• missing witness statements;
• incomplete medical records; or
• gaps in the chronology of events.

Missing material may need to be requested before final advice can safely be given.

5. Can the evidence actually prove the charge?

This is the key legal question.

Police may genuinely believe an offence occurred, but belief is not enough.

The evidence has to prove the required legal elements of the charge.

That is where many cases become more complicated than they first appear.

---

Not sure whether the evidence actually proves the charge?
Call 1300 952 255. We can review the QP9 or Brief of Evidence and advise you on the strength of the prosecution case, whether further disclosure is needed, and whether there is a basis to negotiate the charge or facts.

 

Can reviewing the Brief of Evidence lead to a charge being withdrawn or reduced?

It can.

There is never a guarantee.

But reviewing the evidence properly can identify problems that may justify submissions to the prosecution.

Depending on the case, that may lead to:

• withdrawal of a charge;
• substitution of a less serious charge;
• amendment of the prosecution facts;
• removal of allegations that are not supported by the evidence; or
• a more appropriate negotiated outcome.

For example, the evidence may establish that something happened, but not support the exact charge as laid.

In another case, the evidence may support a guilty plea, but not the more aggravated version alleged in the QP9.

This is one of the main reasons why reviewing the evidence can be so important before a plea is entered.

What happens if the Brief of Evidence is incomplete?

That is not unusual.

In many cases, some material is still being obtained or processed.

For example, police may still be waiting for:

• scientific analysis;
• medical evidence;
• forensic testing;
• expert reports;
• phone downloads;
• CCTV;
• additional witness statements; or
• other investigative material.

If the Brief is incomplete, the next step depends on what is missing and how important it is.

Sometimes the missing material is unlikely to affect the advice.

Sometimes it is central to the case and should be obtained before any major decision is made.

Where necessary, further disclosure can be sought and the court can be asked to make directions about the progression of the matter.

How long does a Brief of Evidence take in Queensland?

There is no single answer.

The time required depends on things like:

• how complex the case is;
• how many witnesses are involved;
• whether there is CCTV or body-worn camera footage;
• whether phone or computer material has to be extracted;
• whether forensic testing is outstanding; and
• whether expert reports are required.

A straightforward matter may progress much more quickly than a complex case involving multiple witnesses, digital evidence and scientific material.

What matters most is not simply how long it is taking, but whether the delay is reasonable and whether the missing material is important.

What happens after the Brief of Evidence is received?

Once the evidence is available, the case can be assessed properly.

That may lead to one of several outcomes.

The evidence is strong

If the prosecution case is strong, the focus may move to:

• deciding whether to plead guilty;
• negotiating the wording of the prosecution facts;
• preparing mitigation;
• obtaining references or other supporting material; and
• working towards the best possible sentencing outcome.

The evidence is weaker than expected

If the evidence does not support the charge as strongly as the QP9 suggests, the focus may move to:

• further disclosure;
• case conferencing;
• submissions to the prosecution;
• negotiating the charge or facts; or
• preparing to defend the matter.

The evidence raises more questions

Sometimes the correct advice is that the case cannot yet be safely finalised because further information is needed.

That is not a bad result. It simply means a proper review has identified that more work needs to be done before a plea decision is made.

Can I review the Brief of Evidence myself?

You can read through your own material, and many clients do.

But the difficulty is usually not reading it. The difficulty is knowing what is legally important.

A witness statement may sound damaging but not actually prove an essential part of the offence.

A small inconsistency may turn out to be important when compared with CCTV.

A body-worn camera recording may contain something significant that is easy to miss without experience in criminal matters.

A lawyer’s review is about more than reading. It is about analysing whether the evidence actually proves the charge and whether there is any strategic advantage in challenging, negotiating or clarifying aspects of the case.

I already have a Brief of Evidence. Can Clarity Law review it?

Yes.

You do not have to have instructed us from the beginning of the case.

People often come to us after:

• their first court appearance;
• receiving a QP9;
• obtaining some or all of the Brief of Evidence; or
• becoming concerned that they do not fully understand the evidence against them.

We can review the available material and advise you about:

• the strength of the prosecution case;
• whether further evidence should be sought;
• whether there is a basis to negotiate;
• whether the charge appears appropriate;
• whether the matter should be contested; and
• what practical next steps should be taken.

 

Should I plead guilty before seeing the Brief of Evidence?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

There is no universal rule.

In some straightforward matters, obtaining the full brief before a guilty plea may add little value and simply delay the case.

In other matters, pleading guilty before the evidence is examined could be a serious mistake.

The correct approach depends on:

• the charge;
• what the client accepts or disputes;
• the seriousness of the consequences;
• the existence of CCTV or other objective evidence;
• whether the prosecution facts appear accurate; and
• whether a defence or negotiation issue may arise.

Before deciding how to plead, it is important to get advice on whether reviewing the Brief of Evidence is necessary in your particular case.

Briefs of Evidence in Queensland courts

Clarity Law represents clients in criminal matters throughout Queensland, including matters before the Brisbane, Beenleigh, Ipswich, Southport, Richlands, Caboolture, Maroochydore and Toowoomba Magistrates Courts.

The legal issues involved in reviewing a Brief of Evidence do not change simply because your matter is in a different Queensland court. What varies is the case itself. A brief involving a few witness statements and CCTV is very different from one involving phone downloads, forensic testing, expert material or many hours of police body-worn camera footage.

Where important evidence remains outstanding, we identify what is missing, seek further disclosure where appropriate, and advise the client whether the matter should progress or whether more material should be obtained first.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a QP9 the same as a Brief of Evidence?

No. A QP9 is generally a summary of the police allegation. A Brief of Evidence contains the material said to prove the charge.

Does every criminal charge require a full Brief of Evidence?

No. Some straightforward matters may not require a full brief before a plea is entered. But in more serious or disputed matters, reviewing the evidence can be very important.

Does a Brief of Evidence include CCTV and body-worn camera footage?

It can. Where footage forms part of the prosecution case, it may be included or otherwise disclosed with the brief or through the prosecution disclosure process.

How long does it take to get a Brief of Evidence?

There is no fixed timeframe. It depends on the complexity of the matter and whether further evidence is still being obtained, analysed or prepared.

What if evidence is missing from the Brief?

That may justify seeking further disclosure. The appropriate response depends on what is missing and whether it is likely to affect the case.

Can a charge be dropped after the Brief of Evidence is reviewed?

Potentially, yes. If the evidence does not adequately support the charge, that may provide a basis for submissions seeking withdrawal, amendment or negotiation of the charge or facts.

Should I plead guilty before seeing the Brief of Evidence?

Not always. In some cases it is appropriate to do so, but in others it can be a mistake. The right answer depends on the charge, the facts and the evidence that exists.

Can I bring my Brief of Evidence to Clarity Law for review?

Yes. If you already have the QP9 or Brief of Evidence, we can review it and advise you on the strength of the case and your options.

Why the Brief of Evidence matters

A criminal charge starts with an allegation.

A Brief of Evidence is where that allegation starts being tested against the material said to prove it.

Sometimes the evidence confirms the prosecution case.

Sometimes it reveals problems, inconsistencies or missing material.

Sometimes it opens the door to negotiations.

Sometimes it shows that a matter should be defended.

The important thing is that the decision about what to do next should be based on the actual evidence, not just the wording of the QP9 or assumptions about what police may be able to prove.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence in Queensland and have received a QP9 or Brief of Evidence, Clarity Law can review the material and explain where you stand.

Call to speak with one of our Queensland criminal lawyers.

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