Clarity Law

When facing an arrest, many people in Queensland tend to overlook one of their most potent defences—the right to silence. Far too often, individuals willingly speak to the police, unknowingly providing evidence that can lead to charges being brought against them or harsher penalties in court. In this article, we'll delve into the importance of exercising your right to silence, explore the legal context in Australia and Queensland, and provide insights into protecting your rights during police questioning.

In our opinion people in Queensland far too easily give up their right to silence when speaking to police. Often a person’s willingness to talk to police results in charges being bought or harsher penalties in court.

Over the past 20 years I have had hundreds of calls from people asking my advice on whether to talk to police. In those 20 years I have never once advised a client to give a voluntary statement to police. I hope in this article to explain why.

The situation in Australia

The Australia Constitution contains no right to avoid self incrimination or to refuse to give a statement to police. Unlike the situation in America where the constitution contains the fifth amendment which provides: no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself …”

The right to silence and self incrimination under the common law is however well established throughout Australia.

The High Court of Australia stated that right was;

A person may refuse to answer any question, or to produce any document or thing, if to do so may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal

In another Case Justice Murphy of the High Court put that right as follows;

It is based on the desire to protect personal freedom and human dignity. These social values justify the impediment the privilege presents to judicial or other investigation. It protects the innocent as well as the guilty from the indignity and invasion of privacy which occurs in compulsory self-incrimination; it is society’s acceptance of the inviolability of the human personality

The common law right of silence applies to both people who have actually committed an offence and those that are merely suspected of committing an offence.

The situation in Queensland

The right to silence is contained in Queensland common law and is protected in legislation. Section 397 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 provides that;

Right to remain silent not affected

Nothing in this chapter affects the right of a person to refuse to answer questions, unless required to answer the questions by or under an Act

With limited exceptions you only need to go with the police station for an interview if you are formally arrested for an offence or formally detained for questioning about an indictable offence.

Before Questioning a suspect the police in Queensland must caution that suspect that they have a right not to answer any questions and to obtain legal advice.

It is also critical to understand that if you chose not to speak to the police and are subsequently charged with a crime then the court or a jury cannot take into account you chose to remain silent, remaining silent is not evidence of guilt and no inference can be drawn that a person remaining silent is hiding something. In Petty v R (1991) 173 CLR 95 the High Court confirmed that no adverse inferences, of any sort, could be drawn from the accused's refusal to answer questions. The High Court went on to say that;

Although ordinary experience allows that an inference may be drawn to the effect that an explanation is false simply because it was not given when an earlier opportunity arose, that reasoning process has no place in a criminal trial. It is fundamental to our system of criminal justice that it is for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ... it is never for the accused person to prove his innocence ... Therein lies an important aspect of the right to silence, which right also encompasses the privilege against incrimination.

The right to silence also extends to a court case, a defendant cannot be compelled nor is required to give evidence at their trial. It is critical to understand that the crown must prove a person is guilty of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not up to the accused to prove they are innocent.

As can be seen the right to silence is one that is both well established in Queensland and a powerful right that should be exercised by almost every person that the police wish to speak to. The Queensland Government makes it clear on their website you have the right to remain silent. It is however in our experience one that most people do not take advantage of, why is that?

Why do people not remain silent?

In our experience most people want to actively assist the police. They have been told since a child that the police can help them if they get into trouble. The police are also very good at making it sound like they are just there to assist people and maybe if a person can explain their situation then they perhaps won’t be charged. This is not how the police work in practice.

If you are being asked to give an interview to the police then in our experience it is because of two reasons. The first is the police don’t have enough evidence to you and need them to admit their guilty, once that is done they are charged. Alternatively, the police always intended to charge you and just want you to give a confession to make the police job easier.

Also remember the police are experts at questioning, for most people this will be their first experience, they will be stressed, nervous and out of their depth, not the police they do this all the time and are taught the most effective methods of questioning. If you think you can fool the police during an interview then you will find you are wrong.

I’m not guilty what’s the harm in telling the police my side?

The police before questioning a person will investigate the matter, gather evidence, speak to other witnesses. They will know the case and all the evidence in great detail before speaking to a suspect. The suspect however will know very little and the police usually won’t tell them very much about the evidence they have. The police also have often decided that they believe the suspect is guilty and will be actively trying to get the suspect to confess certain things to make the charging process easier. Remember the police are talking to a person because they are either a suspect or possible suspect to a crime.

A person can also innocently admit a fact that they don’t know is a breach of the law or that the admissions they won’t be able to claim a certain type of defence if the matter went to trial. People under stress can also make mistakes, they can inadvertently admit something that isn’t true. We often get charges withdrawn because the evidence if not strong enough, it happens every day however if you have made admissions to the police getting charges withdrawn is almost impossible.

Remember also that people lie, a person may have lied to police that a suspect did something, the police may believe that lie and not be objective in their questioning. Perhaps a witness is wrong about something, you may tell the police something and a witness might innocently but wrongly tell them something different, you might come off as a liar even though you told the absolute truth.

James Duane, an American Law professor gave an excellent speech about why you should never talk to police. Whilst the American law is different the basic concepts are not. Professor Duane argues that even if you haven't committed a crime, it's dangerous to tell the police any information. You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, evidence that can be interpreted different ways and sheer bad luck lead to you being convicted of a serious crime. His speech can be viewed on YouTube.

But I will look guilty if I don’t talk to police

Quite frankly who cares if you look guilty, not talking to police protects your rights the most, better to look guilty by not talking to police then actually be charged by police after you talk to them. In our experience if the police are going to formally interview you then they have likely already made up their mind to charge you, why help them with that process? You are not going to talk you way out of a charge if the police have already decided to charge you. The police aren’t there to be fair to you, this is critical to understand, your future is at risk, your job is at risk, your liberty is at risk.

Remember if a police officer or lawyer or judge was ever accused of a crime you can be absolutely sure they would not talk to the police and they would be telling their family and friends the same thing if they were charged.

I’m guilty why not just tell the police everything so I get a lighter sentence?

While it’s true that co-operating with police can often be a factor the court can take into account when setting a penalty in our view its not a major factor and the risk of getting charged with extra offences because an accused made admissions to charges the police wouldn’t be able to charge without that admission is, without legal advice to the contrary, not worth giving up the right to silence. If you are truly guilty and are charged then you can plead guilty before a court and that guilty plea is one of the most important factors the court will take into account.

You don’t need to be in a hurry to admit your guilt.

How do I tell police I want say anything?

You should make it clear from the start that you will not be answering questions and wish to speak to a lawyer. If the police continue to question you then you can remain silent and merely point out that you wish to speak to a lawyer. Do not answer some questions and not others, apart from basic details such as name and address then you should not be answering any questions without legal advice.

The police can detain a person for up to 8 hours before they need to charge them or release them. The police can question a person for up to 4 hours within that 8 hours.

Summary of your right to silence

1. Understanding Your Right to Silence

Unlike the United States, where the constitution's Fifth Amendment explicitly protects the right against self-incrimination, Australia does not have such a constitutional provision. However, under common law, the right to silence and protection against self-incrimination are firmly established throughout Australia, including Queensland.

2. Your Right to Silence in Queensland

Section 397 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 clearly affirms your right to remain silent during police questioning. This means you are not obligated to answer any questions unless required to do so by specific legislation.

3. Seeking Legal Advice

Upon being questioned by the police, immediately exercise your right to remain silent and request to speak with a qualified criminal defence lawyer. The police are skilled at questioning, and without proper legal representation, you may inadvertently harm your defence.

4. The Power of Remaining Silent

When questioned by the police, it is crucial to understand that remaining silent does not imply guilt. You cannot be compelled to prove your innocence, and no adverse inferences can be drawn from your refusal to answer questions. The burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution.

5. The Risk of Talking to the Police

Speaking to the police without legal advice can be risky, even if you believe you are innocent. The police might already have formed an opinion about your guilt and seek a confession to bolster their case. Innocent admissions or mistakes during questioning could be used against you later.

6. Protecting Your Rights

Remember that the police are not there to be fair to you; their primary objective is to gather evidence for potential charges. Therefore, exercising your right to silence is crucial in protecting your future, job, and liberty.

7. You Have the Right to Legal Counsel

Don't be swayed by the fear of looking guilty. You are entitled to legal representation, and even if you are guilty, it is often best to remain silent until you have consulted with your lawyer.

8. Cooperating with the Police

While cooperation can be a factor in sentencing, the potential risks of giving admissions or additional evidence to the police often outweigh the benefits.

9. Seek Legal Advice Before Talking to Police

If the police want to question you, invoke your right to remain silent and request to speak to a lawyer immediately. Engaging legal counsel can significantly impact the outcome of your case and protect your rights against the formidable resources of the state.

Disclaimer

Obviously this is just general guidance and not specific legal advice and this guidance only applies in Queensland. There are occasions where you must accompany the police to a station, for example for a drug or drink driving test if you are suspected of a DUI, also you are required to give basic details like your name and address if asked by police.

There might be the very unusual case where talking to police is the right thing to do. That is why we say you need to talk to a lawyer before talking to the police.

Conclusion

The right to silence is a powerful defence mechanism that has evolved over centuries to protect individuals from self-incrimination. In Queensland, you have the right to remain silent during police questioning, and this right should be exercised wisely to safeguard your legal interests. Always remember that seeking legal advice before talking to the police is paramount to ensuring your rights are protected and securing the best possible outcome for your case.

One of the most talented and admired American judges was Robert Jackson. He was the chief American prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals, was the US Attorney General and later a Justice of the US Supreme Court, when it came to talking to police he stated that;

"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances"

The law provides you with powerful right, you should use it.

Some of our other useful blog posts

• Why You Should Never Represent Yourself in Court
• Mitigation: How the court sets a sentence in Queensland
• What is an arrest warrant?
• What do I do when I have missed my court date!
• Do you have to give the police access to your phone?
• Contravene direction or requirement
• Should I hire a Criminal Defence Lawyer?

Get in touch with us

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

Stealing items from a shop (shoplifting) is one of the more common charges Queensland magistrate courts deal with on a day to day basis. There is no defined group that commit this charge, more than other types of criminal charges it spans all genders, races and socio-economic groups.

As part of our ongoing quick guide series we are looking at various criminal charges in Queensland in more detail. Today we are looking at assault occasioning bodily harm mostly abbreviated to AOBH.

Whenever you are charged with a criminal offence there is usually the scope to try and negotiate those charges with the police prosecutor or the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”). This is known as case conferencing in Queensland.

Negotiating with the Prosecution is a subtle art. This article intends to outline the process and some of the factors involved with negotiating with the prosecutors.

What is the Purpose of Negotiating?

There are three main aims with negotiating:

1. To have the prosecution withdraw/drop a charge,
2. To have the prosecution ‘downgrade’ a charge to a less serious one,
3. To have the prosecution amend the alleged facts to make them more favourable.

Who does the Case Conferencing?

Negotiations with the police prosecution unit or DPP are almost exclusively done by lawyers. You can of course self-represent yourself and negotiate with the prosecutor and prosecutors are always willing to listen to unrepresented people, however, most people simply don't have the skills to properly negotiate with the prosecutor as it is simply not skill that they have learnt or indeed would want or need to learn.

Negotiations are an informal process referred to amongst lawyers and prosecutors as case conferencing. It is not specified how case conferencing or negotiations need to take place, however, typically it is either face to face, over the phone or where the lawyer sends written submissions to the prosecutor to consider.

What would typically happen is if the charge is reduced or withdrawn than on the next court date or on the first date if the first court mention date has not occurred yet the prosecutor would seek to amend the current charges to that reduced charge or if they are withdrawing the charge they will offer no evidence in regards to the charge and the court will dismiss the charge and the client is free to go without any punishment.

What are the Usual Grounds for Challenging a Charge?

The prosecutors’ guidelines tell them there are two grounds under which they may withdraw or downgrade a charge:

1. Insufficiency of evidence.
2. Public interest.

Insufficiency of evidence

This ground is concerned with whether the prosecution have enough evidence to prove the charge, or, whether there is evidence of a clear defence.

Whether the charge can be proved is in reference to the legal ‘elements’ of the offence. Each criminal or traffic offence has certain parts or elements to it that must be proved to legally establish the charge. For example, to establish a charge of drink driving, the police would need to prove:

• The defendant,
• While over the general alcohol limit,
• Drove a motor vehicle,
• On a public road.

If any one of the above elements could not be proved, then the charge would fail. An example of a submission that might succeed would be if a person was caught drink driving on private property, for example, doing donuts in his own paddock after a few beers. The obvious submission would be the defendant did not break the law because he was not on a public road.

Occasionally, the evidence for a defence, even on the police version of events, is so strong the defence would likely succeed at trial. A recent accepted submission of mine was as follows: A landlord aggressively came to the client’s front door, demanding rent money. The client’s boyfriend went outside the unit to try and deescalate the situation. Unfortunately, he was attacked by the landlord, then the landlord tried to force her way into the unit. As she was reaching into the unit her hand grabbed at my client’s face, and the aggressor’s finger incidentally went into my client’s mouth. My client then bit her finger. Our submission on self-defence was successful.

Another way a ‘insufficiency of evidence’ submission might succeed is if, although all the legal elements are there, some or all of the evidence is just too weak or inadmissible. An example of this might be a person is charged with breaching a domestic violence order. The allegation was simply that, sometime in the evening one night, the person protected by the order, who was at home, heard someone outside his house shout out ‘scum’ or something similar. He thought it sounded like the person restrained by the order. In that situation, we argued the evidence was just too weak to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Public Interest

The public interest has many factors. Some are listed below.

• Seriousness or triviality of the alleged offence,
• existence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances,
• the youth age, physical or mental health or special infirmity of the alleged offender or a necessary witness,
• the alleged offender’s antecedents and background,
• whether or not the prosecution would be perceived as counterproductive to the interests of justice,
• the prevalence of the alleged offence,
• whether or not the alleged offence is of minimal public concern,
• the attitude of the victim of the alleged offence to a prosecution,
• likely outcome in the event of a conviction considering the options available to the court,
• the effect on public order and morale.

The more serious the offence the more likely the public interest will fall on a prosecution.

In What Circumstances are Negotiations Unlikely to Succeed?

There will be times when negotiations are unlikely to be fruitful. For example, it is a very rare day that the prosecution will drop a single charge of breaching a domestic violence order. Likewise, it is rare that the prosecution will drop a charge of drink driving or drug driving. Usually, the prosecutors will be more open to negotiating if it does not mean dropping all charges. Sometimes that will be the right result. But more often, downgrading charges, or dropping only some charges, or amending facts, are more likely to get a result.

We will give frank advice if we think a submission is unlikely to succeed, but it will ultimately be the client who makes the final decision as to whether to proceed with a submission or not.

When Would I Negotiate?

There are two parts to this answer. The first part is if there is, if a chance of a charge being dropped or downgraded. The second is if the facts can be made substantially more favourable.

The likelihood of a charge being dropped on downgraded depends on the individual circumstances of the case. There is no ‘one size fits all’ advice. Refer to what I have written above to get a sense of the relevant considerations.

Whether alleged facts of the offence should be negotiated will often depend on the evidence. For example, we had a recent case where the defendant was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. The facts originally said he pushed a woman, unprovoked, with great force over the top of a small gate and down a small staircase. This obviously sounds very bad. This version, however, was based on what one witness said, and the witness had some other questionable things included in her statement. Other witnesses, however, told a more balanced version of events: that the client and complainant were arguing at the top of the small staircase, the complainant swung her hand towards the client, and the client grabbed her hand and shoved it away in such a manner than she spun around and stumbled down the stairs. In both cases her injuries were severe, but in the version we got the prosecution to agree to, our client’s moral culpability was significantly lessened. Indeed, in my view that change in facts kept the client out of jail.

What Happens if the Submission is Rejected?

If the prosecution rejects the submission, then the defendant has two choices: to plead guilty to the charge as it is, or take the matter to a trial. Sometimes a trial listing can put pressure on the prosecution to reconsider a submission. Often, if we think it has merit, we will press a submission more than once as the case progresses.

Examples of Negotiating with the Prosecutor

We will use two examples. One is an assault occasioning bodily harm charge, the other is a trafficking in drugs charge.

Example 1

So let's first take the first example of assault occasioning bodily harm charge (“AOBH”). AOBH is a charge that can often lead to a prison sentence. The prosecutor must prove that;

• The assault took place;
• The assault was unlawful; and
• That the injury amounted to bodily harm.

Bodily harm means any injury that interferes with the complainant’s health or comfort.

Case conferencing often occurs once the police prosecutors brief (or most commonly known as the QP9) is provided to you or your lawyer. The QP9 will set out what the police prosecutor intends to tell the court happened. This includes the details of the alleged assault, what background or build up to the alleged assault occurred and the alleged injury to the complainant.

The charge of AOBH can be heard in the Magistrates court only if the defendant agrees, if they do not agree the charge must be heard in the District Court. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment or 10 years if the assault took place in company with another person or if the defendant was armed or pretended to be armed with a weapon.

When looking at negotiating with the prosecutor we would in most cases take a detailed statement from the client, see if any CCTV exists, check social media to see if the complainant has posted anything about the alleged assault, check medical records of the complainant and take statements from any person who may have seen the alleged assault. We would then see what, if any, negotiations with the prosecutor could take place.

Some examples of successful case conferencing we have achieved for assault matters are;

• Had the AOBH charge withdrawn as our client was acting in their own self-defence after being confronted and threatened by the complainant in a pub.

• Had the AOBH charge withdrawn as our client was protecting his partner after she was attacked by the complainant.

• Convinced the prosecutor to reduce the charge to common assault as we were able to show the injuries did not fit the definition of AOBH. Reducing the charge to common assault meant the client was punished with a fine only and no conviction was recorded.

• Having the prosecutor withdraw a charge of serious assault after we were able to show our client was provoked by a number of racial remarks were yelled at him over an extended period.

• Being able to convince the prosecutor to withdraw the charge after convincing them that the complainant’s statement was unreliable and he was grossly intoxicated at the time of the offence.

• Having the AOBH charge withdrawn by the prosecutor after we showed that the CCTV footage was unclear and that they could not be satisfied that it was our client that assaulted the complainant and that other person’s present could have inflicted the injury.

Example 2

Lets take a look at another example, that is trafficking in drugs. This is a very serious charge and will almost certainly lead to a person serving time in prison if convicted. Trafficking is where a person carries on the business of selling or supplying drugs. The critical question is whether the defendant was in the business of trafficking drugs and this usually means a course of conduct engaged over a period of time for commercial reward. However even a single supply or sale could technically be charged as trafficking and the reward does not have to be money or might be for instance a payment of drugs for the defendant’s personal use. The prosecutor might build their case on informants, telephone intercepts, downloads of messages or surveillance of the defendant.

Negotiating this charge usually involves getting a full brief of evidence and going through that brief carefully to look to see if we can convince the prosecutor that;

• It was not our client that was the one trafficking the drugs

• That if our client sold drugs it was not trafficking and the charge should be reduced to supplying drugs

• That the evidence is not sufficient to convince a jury our client is guilty and the charge should be discontinued.

Some examples of successful case conferencing we have achieved for drug charges are;

• Had the prosecutor reduce a trafficking charge to supplying dangerous drugs so that the client served no time in prison.

• Convinced the police prosecutor to reduce supplying dangerous drugs to just possession of small amount of drugs for a 18 year old client.

• After negotiation with the prosecutor they agreed to withdraw a charge of trafficking as we pointed out they didn’t have enough evidence to successfully prosecute our client

Summary

Always ensure you engage experienced criminal lawyers if you are charged with a crime as we have found negotiating with the prosecutor after the client first tried by themselves and failed or less experienced lawyers were engaged and they had a failed negotiation can be difficult to correct.

A submission is a useful tool in a defence lawyer’s arsenal and can be used to improve a client’s legal position if used effectively. In this area, experience and expert legal advice matter.

Why should I engage Clarity Law?

We care about getting the right outcome for clients and helping them through one of the most difficult times in their lives.

In the face of a criminal law charge, selecting the right legal representation is paramount, and Clarity Law offers a unique blend of proficiency and empathy that sets us apart. Our firm is dedicated to providing clarity in the often complex world of criminal law. We believe that every client deserves a clear understanding of their rights and the legal process they're navigating.

Our experienced team of lawyers approaches each case with a commitment to open communication, ensuring you're informed every step of the way. With a proven track record of securing favourable outcomes, we have the expertise to navigate even the most intricate legal challenges.

At Clarity Law, we strive not only to be your staunch advocates but also to provide a supportive, understanding environment during this trying time. Choosing Clarity Law means choosing a team that will tirelessly work to protect your rights and pursue the best possible outcome for your case.

You can read more about our founder, Steven Brough’s, journey to starting Clarity Law by clicking here.

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 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.

If you don’t engage us that fine too, at least you will have more information on the charge and its consequences.

Other articles that may be of interest

• 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

• Why You Should Never Represent Yourself in Court

• Mitigation: How the court sets a sentence in Queensland

• What is an arrest warrant?

• What do I do when I have missed my court date!

• Do you have to give the police access to your phone?

• Contravene direction or requirement

• Should I hire a Criminal Defence Lawyer?

• Police questioning and your right to silence in Queensland

• Drink Driving Lawyers Brisbane

• Drink Driving Lawyers Gold Coast

• Drink Driving Lawyers Sunshine Coast

• Drink Driving Lawyer Ipswich

• Drink Driving Lawyer Beenleigh

• Drink Driving Lawyer Caboolture

• Drink Driving Lawyer Strathpine

A police court brief or more commonly called a QP9 (Queensland Police Form 9) is a document prepared by the Queensland Police Prosecutions when someone is charged with an offence. The QP9 lists the exact charge with a brief description of the facts which the Police are alleging against you. Depending on what Court your matter is to be heard in and how busy the Police Prosecutions are the document will be provided prior to your Court date or at Court.

It is essential to carefully go over the document prior to entering a plea before the Court, as you are not only pleading guilty to the charge but also to all the facts and circumstances surrounding the charge that the Police allege in the QP9, this may include the way you acted towards the Police, things that you said or admitted or information recorded by the Police that you believe is incorrect or inaccurate etc. This should be remembered when being charged as harsher penalties or less leniency can apply if the document states that you were rude, unruly, unhelpful etc. Also being aggressive when being charged can easily result in a further charge of resisting arrest or obstructing or assaulting police.

Obtaining the QP9 or having a Lawyer obtain the document for you and having a thorough look over the documents before you enter your plea is essential so that if there is any discrepancies they are looked into.

In Court the Police will read out the charge and a brief rundown of their version of events from the QP9. It is then that your Lawyer, or yourself if you are self-represented, can have your say and voice your version of events if they differ to the QP9. If there are significant factors from the QP9 in which you disagree with it may be possible to draft submissions and put them forward to the Police Prosecutions asking them to reconsider the facts alleged or the charge.   A Lawyer can advise you on, after going over the QP9, the possibility of making submissions and if so what the likely chances of the Prosecution accepting them would be.  It is important to note if what you say is materially different to what the police say in the QP9 then the Magistrate will need to list the matter for a trial or a disputed facts hearing.

In more serious matters, if necessary, it is possible to request a full brief of evidence at the first Court appearance. This document is like a QP9 but much more detailed and will include any witness statements, CCTV or audio footage etc. The Police can take up to 6-8 weeks to produce this material.

Some examples of our success in getting the Police Prosecutions to lower or dismiss charges including:

1. Our client had been charged with common assault. Upon receiving and reviewing the QP9 we were able to put submissions to the Police Prosecutions and were successful in having the charge downgraded to public nuisance.

2. Our client was charged with stealing as a servant in the sum in excess of $3,000. Upon review of the QP9 and obtaining CCTV footage we were able to have the Police reduce the alleged amount of money stolen to $750, helping the client to avoid jail time.

3. Our client was charged with sexual assault. This was successfully downgraded to common assault after submissions to the Police Prosecutions unit.

4. Our client was charged with supply of a dangerous drug. After analysing and conferring with the Police Prosecutions we were able to have the charge downgraded to possession of a dangerous drug, which is a much less serious charge.

5. Our client was charged with theft, after reviewing the CCTV footage we were able to show the client had paid for the goods and the charge was dropped.

6. Our client was charged with Dangerous Driving.  After reviewing the dash camera footage we were able to get the charge reduced to careless driving.

Here at Clarity Law we represent clients in Courts across South East Queensland every day, it is this experience, and our expertise that allows us to get the absolute best result for clients by exploring all aspects of their charges and ensuring they do not plead guilty to something they do not need to.  We also offer the most competitive prices in Queensland that are all fixed fee so there are no nasty surprises when you receive your invoice.  If you want to engage us or just need further information or advice then you can either;

For more information visit our webpage or call 1300 952 255 7am – 7pm seven days a week

Disclaimer – this article contains general advice only and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice.  Its represents information about the law in Queensland and since publishing the law or the interpretation of that law may have changed.

Whenever someone is charged in a Court it is usual practice that a conviction will be recorded on the person’s criminal or traffic history, depending which one the charge related to.

Once a person is 17 years of age any convictions on their traffic or criminal history will stay on record for up to 10 years. Each State has their own records for what charges occurred in that particular State but they can be provided to other States when requested by a Police force or a Court. You may need a copy of your criminal record to apply for a job, work as a volunteer, work with children, apply for insurance or to get an overseas visa.

Although it can be difficult, it is possible to convince the Magistrates not to record a conviction if there are reasonable grounds to support the request. These need to be good reasons such as –

• You will lose your job due to the nature of your occupation the organisation whom you work for;
• If it is a criminal charge – that you wish to travel or apply for the Navy etc
• It is your first offence

If no conviction is recorded you do not need to disclose to anyone that you have been charged with that offence (except if disclosure is required by law for example applying to work with children). If, for example, an employer does a search a non-conviction will not show up on a criminal history, however, the Police and Courts will always be able to see the charge and the fact that no conviction was recorded.

We have had success in obtaining no convictions recorded, even when they were charged with quite serious offences. Here are some examples  –

1. A client was charged with a large drug offence and owned a car importing business, bringing in cars from America. A conviction would be restricted his ability to travel to America and also to import vehicles to the Country, resulting in him losing his ability to earn an income and keep his business.

2. A client was charged with common assault. Due to the fact that he was a school bus driver the recording of a criminal charge would have meant to he would have lost his job.

3. A client from overseas, who is now an Australia Citizen, was charged with a drug charge. A conviction could have prevented him from being able to travel overseas to see his family.

4. A young client was in the process of applying to the Army and was charged with drink driving. A conviction could have interfered with this application.

If you are charged with any traffic offence (excluding dangerous driving which is a criminal charge) it will only be recorded on your traffic history the same as a speeding fine would be. It is not recorded  on your criminal history. It is generally only criminal history which can effect overseas travel but some countries may require more information from you if you have traffic charges recorded.  

Here at Clarity Law we almost every day appear in the Courts with clients, many of which are seeking that no conviction be recorded. It is this experience that allows us to get the absolute best result for clients.  Other law firms simply don’t have the experience that we do and don’t know the Magistrates like we do.  We also offer the most competitive prices for representation in Queensland click here to see what we will charge. 

If you want to engage us or just need further information or advice then call us on 1300 952 255 seven days a week, 7am to 7pm or visit our website at www.claritylaw.com.au