At 1:00am on Monday morning, the Queensland border opened to the rest of Australia following the vaccination rates reaching 80% double vaccinated. There is some important information you need to know about the border reopening.
You can travel from a hotspot and you will not be required to quarantine for 14 days regardless of whether you intend to arrive by air or road.
Prior to entering Queensland, you must have provided a negative COVID-19 lab test result within the 72 hours prior to arrival.
To be considered fully vaccinated you must have received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at least a week prior to your intended date of arrival.
If you are travelling from a hotspot you must get tested on day five, after your arrival. If you test positive you will be expected to isolate.
If you are not full vaccinated and intend to travel into Queensland you will be required to quarantine for 14 days in a government nominated facility at your own expense.
You must ensure you complete your Queensland Entry pass in order to be allowed to cross the border. People need to be careful and ensure that they complete the correct border pass or they will be turned away at the border. For border residents there will be an ‘X’ Pass, there is a pass for intentional travellers and there will be a ‘G’ Pass which is one for individuals coming from hotspots.
If you are from the border zone are you are fully vaccinated then you will be able to freely move across the border for any reason without the need for a COVID test. You will still require a border pass. If you are not vaccinated than you can still travel into Queensland but it will need to be for essential purposes only.
It is highly recommended that individuals ensure they look at the Qld Health website to ensure they understand the Queensland Travel Restrictions prior to their travel into Queensland to prevent any issues when crossing the Queensland Border.
Our team specialize in criminal defence. Our role is to sit down with you and work out the strategy that will get you the best possible result. If you have any questions about this article or any other topic of law, please call our team of experts on 1300 066 669.
Castlemaine tradie, Glenn Stratton, was charged with murder in May 2021 after pulling the trigger to end his father’s life. This was not an act of hate however, rather an act of “love and respect” as put by Supreme Court Justice Hollingworth.
Stratton’s father, Colin Stratton was suffering from chronic cancer. He had attended numerous doctors, begging them to euthanise him under Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying program. On 24 May 2021, he asked his GP for a suicide pill, but was told that it would take at least two weeks to process the paperwork. He then turned to his family for help.
The father called his son, asking him to grab the rifle that had been sitting in his shed, unused, since his 14th birthday. Stratton did not want to assist, but his father said it was going to happen that day with or without his help. The father tried to point the rifle to his head himself, but was unable to pull the trigger. He then placed the end of the rifle in the hands of Stratton, with the barrel sitting on his forehead, asking for a final favour.
Stratton was arrested and charged with murder. He spent 46 days remanded in custody, unable to attend his father’s funeral. The charge was replaced with aiding and abetting suicide, to which Stratton pleaded guilty.
He was sentenced on 9 December 2021 before the Supreme Court.
Justice Hollingworth said, “The psychological pressure on you must have been enormous.” She described Stratton’s actions in helping his father achieve his wish as “loving, courageous and selfless”.
Her Honour found sentencing him to imprisonment would not benefit him or society. She convicted Stratton and released him on an adjourned undertaking for a period of two years.
Within her reasoning, she said “You finally pulled the trigger spontaneously out of love and respect for his wishes.”
This means he will not go to prison and will remain on strict orders to not commit any further offences, be on good behaviour and will have to undertake counselling and treatment for substance abuse problems.
Parents of Ethan Crumbley, the teen arrested for the murder of four schoolmates and the wounding of seven other people, have been charged with manslaughter.
This is the first time that parents of school shootings have been held accountable for the actions of their children.
It has been reported that Ethan’s parents, purchased a semiautomatic 9-millimeter Sig Sauer as an early Christmas gift. Ethan posted a picture of the gun on his social media page calling it “my new beauty”.
The family spent Thanksgiving testing out Ethan’s “new beauty”, which would then be left stored in an unlocked draw in his parent’s bedroom for his ready access.
When a teacher at school reported seeing Ethan searching online to purchase ammunition, and advised his parents of the same, Ethan’s mother text her son “LOL I’m not mad at you, you have to learn not to get caught”.
When a teacher at school sighted disturbing pictures drawn my Ethan depicting shooting other students, again, his parents were not alarmed and insisted he remain at school.
That same day, Ethan murdered four schoolmates and wounded seven other people. Ethan’s parents fled town before being arrested on manslaughter charges.
The Crumbleys are the first parents to be deemed culpable to a deadly school shooting. The Prosecution will build their case around the allegation that they allowed their son access to a handgun while ignoring glaring warnings that he was on the brink of violence.
The matter is in the very early stages of Court proceedings. If the Jury or a Judge find the Crumbley’s guilty of manslaughter, this case could become a very powerful precedent for the accountability of parents in their children’s criminal behaviour.
Our team specialise in criminal defence. Our role is to sit down with you and work out the strategy that will get you the best possible result. If you have any questions about this article or any other topic of law, please call our team of experts on 1300 066 669.
Domestic Violence matter:
Our client was the Respondent in an application for a Protection Order. There was a Temporary Protection Order with 4 conditions, including no approach and no contact of the Aggrieved.
Court Attended:
Southport Magistrates Court
Attendance Date:
2 November 2021
Court Result:
Our client made an undertaking to be of good behaviour to the Aggrieved and named children. The application was withdrawn, and no court order made.
Charges:
- Contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated offence),
- Commit public Nuisance,
- Obstruct Police officer x2,
- Serious Assault – assault /resist/obstruct police officer/person acting in aid of police officer,
- Willful damage of police property.
Court Attended:
Beenleigh Magistrates Court
Attendance Date:
November 2021
Overview of Case:
Our client was charged with six offences before the Court which all arose out of the one incident.
We spoke to our client to take their version of events and to obtain detailed instructions. Our client advised that they would be pleading guilty to all offences before the Court and wished to have it finalised, our client was in custody at the time. Our client had traffic history and similar offences on their criminal history.
Our client was in breach of both probation and a suspended sentence.
Outcome:
After successful submissions made by our team, our client was released immediately on parole for a period of twelve (12) months.
Charges:
- Driving without a licence disqualified by court order;
- Stealing;
- Receiving Tainted Property;
- Fraud dishonestly make off without paying;
- Contravention of Domestic Violence Order;
- 4 x Possessing dangerous drugs;
- Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking;
- Contravention of a community service order;
- Enter dwelling and commit indictable offence;
- Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels – use;
- Not being endorsed to possess restricted drug;
- Obtain or deal with another entity’s identification information for purpose of committing, or facilitating commission of an indictable offence
Case Details:
Our client had an extensive Criminal History over the past 12 years of similar offences, and was denied bail. A sentence to serve jail time was not out of question.
Court Attended:
Beenleigh Magistrates Court
Attendance Date:
29 October 2021
Court Result:
The stealing charge was dismissed. Our client was convicted not further punished in relation to the drug charges, the failure to appear and the fraud.
104 days were declared as time served and our client was released on immediate parole.
Charges:
Did drive over the general alcohol limit but not over the middle alcohol limit (0.088%)
Court Attended:
Beenleigh Magistrates Court
Attendance Date:
26 October 2021
Case Details:
Our client had 2 entries on her traffic history over the 2 previous years. She worked from home and so was not suitable for a work licence in these circumstances.
Court Result:
Client was sentenced to a $300 fine and the mandatory minimum disqualification of 1 month. The Magistrate did not record a conviction.
Charges:
- Indecent act with or directed at a child or young person contrary to s125 of the Criminal Code 1924,
- Penetrative sexual abuse of a child or young person contrary to s124 of the Criminal Code 1924,
- Penetrative sexual abuse of a child or young person contrary to s124 of the Criminal Code 1924.
Court Attended:
Hobart Supreme Court
Attendance Date:
20 October 2021
Case Outcome:
Our client was convicted and sentenced to six (6) months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of three (3) years conditional to be of good behaviour. Our client was subject to a twelve (12) month Community Correction Order. He was not placed on the sex offender registry.
This was an excellent result in the circumstances.
Charges:
- 2 counts of Common Assault.
Court Attended
Hobart Magistrates Court
Attendance Date
7 October 2021
Case Overview
Our client was charged with 2 counts of Common Assault.
Our client reported his offending was a result of him retaliating to damage done to his property by known numerous parties. Our client suffers a health condition that impacts his mobility. Our client responding by chasing two people with his car.
Our client has a criminal history and was looking at facing actual imprisonment.
Case Outcome
Our client was sentenced to four (4) months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of eighteen (18) months conditional he be of good behaviour and complete Community Correction Order. A restraint order was made for a period of twelve (12) months.
This was an excellent result in the circumstances.
Charges:
Did drive over the general alcohol limit but not over the middle alcohol limit
Court Attended:
Beenleigh Magistrates Court
Attendance Date:
October 2021
Overview of Case:
Our client was charged with one offence before the Court.
We spoke to our client to take their version of events and to obtain detailed instructions. Our client advised that they would be pleading guilty to the offence. Our client had no criminal history and minor traffic history.
Outcome:
After successful submissions made by our team, our client received a minor fine and was disqualified from driving for the minimum period of one month.
"*" indicates required fields
Criminal Law, Traffic Law and Domestic Violence related matters anywhere in Australia
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
