It is not fresh news that Victoria has futher outbreaks and that those who should be quarantining have not been complying with self-isolation guidelines.
The New South Wales Government has announce that anyone travelling into the state from Victoria hotspots could be fined $11,000.00 or face a period of imprisonment.
The health Minister Brad Hazzard is signing a public health order today which prohibits anyone from 10 specific postcodes in Victoria from entering New South Wales.
The current Victorian hotspots include Pakenham, Hallam, Brunswick West, Maidstone, Sunshine West, Albanvale, Keilor Downs, Broadmeadows, Fawkner and Reservior.
Mr Hazzard when on to say
“Victorians living in virus hotspots have to take the Victorian and NSW health orders seriously and should be very aware that NSW will impose penalties if they seek to leave hotspot suburbs to enter NSW”
Victoria has faced a new outbreak and recorded 73 new coronavirus cases, the state’s virus total now sits at 2231 cases.
This has occurred after confirmation that among the new cases 3 were from hotel quarantine and 9 were associated with contained outbreaks. 42 remain under investigation.
What are your thoughts?
Should other States follow New South Wales and restrict those from specific postcodes?
Over the weekend, Victoria reported 75 new cases of Coronavirus marking the states fourth highest daily total since March 31st, 2020. Health Minister, Jenny Mikakos, announced that 14 of the 75 cases are linked to outbreak, 37 cases were picked up through routine tests, 23 are still under investigation and only 1 of the 75 cases can be linked to hotel quarantine. Fortunately, there have been no new deaths as a result with the total death toll remaining at 20 people. It is believed that all cases can be linked to one of the state’s ‘hotspot’ suburbs.
Currently, Victoria has a reported 9 people in hospital with 1 person in intensive care. It is reported that an estimated 15,000 coronavirus tests were undertaken on Sunday, 28 June 2020. The majority of positive results come from the concentrated ‘hotspot’ areas around the state.
A new coronavirus test is being sampled that involves testing salvia rather than taking a swab from the nose. The new test is less invasive and will be used in the worst hit suburbs. The test has been developed by the Doherty Institute and is being quickly delivered to the ‘hotspots’, with the help of the Defence Force.
As a result of the new cases, the Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, has stated that the state will need to consider stay-at-home orders and further lockdowns in order to control the spike. He has made comment however in relation to further lockdown noting that “No one wants to go back to that unless we absolutely have to.” The state is also leaning on the advice of the federal deputy chief medical officer, Michael Kidd, who has stated that this new spike in cases it was not a second wave of the virus but rather that it is exactly what was planned when the outbreaks originally started to occur around Australia. Mr Kidd has praised the Victorian government’s thus far, stating it was “very vigorous and appropriate”.
Former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon, was appointed by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the High Court of Australia in 2003. Heydon remained at the bench until his mandatory retirement in 2013.
As a High Court Justice, Heydon’s role was to interpret and apply the law of Australia. He would decide cases of special Federal significance, challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and he would hear appeals from Federal, State and Territory Courts.
Heydon as a High Court Justice, occupied an extraordinary, status-based position. He was held to the highest integrity within the legal profession and was trusted to be a fit and proper person.
However, an independent inquiry commissioned by the High Court of Australia has found that Heydon abused this trust, and sexually harassed six former Judges’ Associates.
Heydon denies the claims. Through his lawyers he states;
“Any allegation of predatory behaviour or breaches of the law is categorically denied by our client. If any conduct of his has caused offence, that result was inadvertent and unintended, and he apologises for any offence caused.”
However, within legal profession, Heydon’s predatory behaviour was an “open secret”.
A Judge-Associate relationship is both a professional and personal one. In addition to being their Associate’s boss and mentor, Judges and Associates, in their respective roles, will spend hours alone together. They are expected to travel together, and Associates are often expected to attend social functions with the Judge.
Heydon knowingly abused the imbalance of power he had with his Associates on multiple different occasions spanning a decade.
It is claimed that the legal profession turned a blind eye, in order to justify the level of power Heydon wielded as a Justice of the High Court of Australia.
Six brave women have now shattered this justification.
The allegations against Heydon demonstrate a pressing need for a deep cultural change within the legal profession.
At the Federal level in Australia, there is currently no independent regulatory mechanism to deal with complaints that are made against Judges.
No one is above the law, therefore there must be an independent mechanism for complaints that extend to cover the conduct of former Judges, who continue to enjoy an elevated status within the legal profession.
NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst suspects there will be winners and losers as the legal system and the profession adjust to life after COVID-19.
He has got women lawyers, clients, expert witnesses and open justice in the happy column. The sad faces will belong to those who expected things would return to normal.
“If you want to use the Rolls-Royce analogy, the car will run just as well,” said the Chief Justice in his chambers this week. “It might not look as attractive, but in due course people will get used to the different style.”
It will involve streamlined hearings, less time in court and less travel – all features of the lockdown. The hybrid model – one party in court and another on a video link – will become commonplace.
Chief Justice Bathurst cites directions hearings – in which courts check on the progress of a case ahead of trial to make his point.
“In the commercial area, a great majority of the directions will still be done online. And whether that’s by audiovisual or telephone, I think that will continue.”
“There will be some contested motions that will be done live. You could use a simple criteria: what matters really need to be heard in court?”
It would mean clients won’t pay for a lawyer’s time as he or she travels to court or waits for their case to be heard.
“We [could] say, ‘Your case will be determined between 9am and 9.15; log on at that time and keep your mute button and your camera on until the case is called’.
“It’s not just in the commercial area. You have the family provisions list; same thing. There will be a very, very significant saving.
“One of the things that always irritated me [at the bar] was that there would be contested directions with real issues, and you’d have to fly down to Melbourne, or to Perth. Sometimes it wasn’t necessary, but that’s what the client wanted.
“Now I think it will be much easier to say, ‘Let’s do it by AVL.”
He said witnesses, “particularly expert witnesses, and certainly non-contentious witnesses, won’t necessarily come to court”.
The Chief Justice said he had sounded out Supreme Court judges as to possible issues with taking hearings online.
“For example, [with] YouTube, it’s very hard to prevent another witness hearing what’s going on before they give their evidence.
“That’s a concern, and it will become a real concern in cases where there is a factual issue.”
He said apart from the criminal division area, where there had been no jury trials since March, there was no backlog. In another sign of a return to normalcy, jury trials resume on June 29.
“We’ll be using a two-court model – one for the trial, one in effect a jury room to keep to social distancing.”
The Chief Justice has heard the complaints about open justice being a casualty of COVID-19.
“I think it’s a bit of furphy actually,” he said. “Everyone’s been able to come to court and we’ve given people – if they want to – an audio or telephone connection so they can see and hear it.”
“There’s been a real improvement in our audiovisual capability,” the Chief Justice said. “What we have now is very different from what we had at the start [of the COVID-19 crisis].”
He said there was a big positive in the fact that it had been shown people could work efficiently from home.
“That mean’s the people with children or responsibilities will be able to not have their practice totally disrupted.
“That will be, in years to come, a huge development as far as the profession is concerned.
“The profession – and the judiciary – should reflect the general community, and this sort of thing is a real step towards that.”
Courtesy of Financial Review
Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to freedom of assembly and association (aka your right to protest) is contained in:
- Articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
- Article 8(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);
- Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD);
- Article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and,
- Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The right to freedom of association is supposed to protect the right of all persons to group together voluntarily for a common goal and to form and join an association. This should encompass your right to protest against government lockdown, Black Lives Matter and Refugee’s are Welcome.
However, time and time again we are seeing people arrested for protesting.
Are our rights to protest even worth the paper they are printed on?
In Brisbane, a protest is currently being held outside the Kangaroo Point Central Hotel and Apartments. Refugee advocates are protesting against the 120 people, some of whom have been in detention for years, being held in the Kangaroo Point Central Hotel. There have been multiple arrests and summons and fines have been issued.
Also, in Brisbane, a Black Lives Matter rally was organized outside of Parliament House at lunchtime. The group were protesting the police brutality against indigenous Australian and the call for justice for those who have died in custody. Again, there were multiple arrests and summons and fines have been issued.
In Melbourne, ten people were arrested outside Parliament House. A protest was opposing the 5g mobile phone technology being installed. Instead of respecting this groups right to protest, Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, called for the protesters to be arrested, dismissing the groups belief’s as “nonsense”.
This brings us to NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller. Mr Fuller has issued a warning for people to stay away from protests. He has publicly stated that the police will press on with a Supreme Court bid to have rallies declared illegal.
Our Prime Minister has raised the issue of a double standard – when asked if police should arrest and charge protesters, Morrison said: “I think they should, I mean, I really do think they should, because you can’t have a double standard here.” But there is a double standard.
It is set out in the seven international human rights treaties Australia is a member of, we have a right to protest the COVID-19 Lockdown. But the reality is, you can and given the current political climate, will be arrested.
If you have been arrested or been served with a fine or summons for protesting, we advise you to seek legal advice.
The Queensland State Government has announced sweeping changes to crack down on youth crime.
There have been increasing concerns in relation to youth offending in the community and the perceived ‘soft approach’ to youth offending.
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has said she has listened to the community and acted implementing a number of changes since 2017. Palaszczuk stated “We acknowledge that local communities and their families have concerns about youth crime”. These concerns have only increased since the COVID-19 pandemic and perception that there has been a further increase in youth crime during this period.
Unfortunately, the most recent statistics of youth crime covering the 2014-15 to 2018-19 periods have shown a significant increase of young people in custody since 2014.
The Youth Justice Annual Summary Statistics custody data shows the average daily number of young people in custody are as follows:
- In 2014-15 = 171
- In 2015-16 = 188
- In 2016-17 = 182
- In 2017-18 = 208
- In 2018-19 = 252
In an attempt to have a stronger approach to youth crime, and more protective approach to the community, the new legislation has been introduced and is set to be passed through Parliament this week.
The Legislation would ensure repeat youth offenders who are deemed an ‘unacceptable risk to the safety of the community’ to be denied bail.
The amendment that is sought to be introduced would remove the word ‘may’ and replaces it with ‘must’ refuse bail to youth who are deemed to be an unacceptable risk. This is believed to provide clarity to the Courts in relation to bail applications for youth offenders.
This is one part of the Government’s ‘five-point’ plan to take a harder line on youth crime.
The Queensland Police will also have Police strikes teams targeting high risk offenders in Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane, Rockhampton and the Gold Coast. There will be a trial of culture-based rehabilitation through new initiatives in Townsville, Cairns and Mount Isa and 10 community-based crime action committees.
The 10 community-based crime action committees will be rolled out in, Cairns, Townsville (as a continuation of the Townsville Stronger Communities Action Group), Rockhampton, Mount Isa, Toowoomba, Caboolture, Ipswich, Logan (to be integrated with activities of the Logan Together initiative), Gold Coast, and Brisbane.
What are your thoughts, is this harder approach justified?
It is no surprise that DNA testing is a commonly used tool for law enforcement when gathering evidence in a case and when trying to catch a criminal offender. More recently, such forensic tests have been taken to a new level with evidence suggesting that ‘familial searching’ is assisting law enforcement to solve crimes. ‘Familial searching’ is still highly controversial though sophisticated, helping law enforcement to find criminals through their family DNA.
Currently in Australia, this forensic test is only used for the most serious of crimes and is often a last resort with all other forms of investigative work needing to be exhausted prior to it being used as an option. There has been a push by Police to make the test more accessible at early stages of an investigation following a number of successful convictions of offenders. If done so, it could possibly save years of police work and taxpayer funds and resources.
In Australia, the test assisted law enforcement in Adelaide in 2017 to catch the convicted rapist known as the ‘North Adelaide Rapist.’ Adelaide detectives had been searching for the accused for years after a series of violent attacks on women. Standard DNA tests were used, taken from 2 crime scenes in 2012, in an attempt to find the accused however Police never found a positive match.
After years of police work searching for the accused, a familial DNA test was ordered and Police were able to match DNA of the ‘North Adelaide Rapist’ with his biological son through a DNA database.
Essentially, if a direct match cannot be made with the accused, scientists can extend the search to find others in the accused bloodline. This is what had occurred in the case of the ‘North Adelaide Rapist.’ After running an extended search, scientists were able to gather a list of 100 people possibly connected to the accused and then narrow that search down further to find a match appearing to be a father-son connection. Patrick Perkins, a 59-year-old man, was later charged and pled guilty to the offences of rape after being found through his DNA. This was a ground breaking result and the first time in Australia that an accused had been successfully convicted through familial DNA testing.
The same forensic test was later used by Queensland Police to assist in solving a murder case in Cooktown where the body of a woman was discovered in a river in 2017. Homicide detectives believed that the familial DNA testing in this case was crucial after the DNA of a male was found at the crime scene but did not match any offenders in the DNA database. Detectives in this case had asked locals to volunteer their DNA in an attempt to find the killer and this proved successful after 200 people submitted their samples to police. From a familial DNA test, the Police were able to locate the killer’s biological mother. Later, 27-year-old, Matthew White, confessed to the murder.
In American, law enforcement were able to locate the man known as the ‘Golden Gate Killer’ through this same form of forensic testing. Controversially, however, American law enforcement had used public ancestry databases without the consent of individuals raising major legal and ethical concerns. Currently, Australian law enforcement do not use genealogy websites to match DNA however there is talk to potentially change this.
The controversary lies then that those entering their DNA into genealogy websites (mainly to find long lost family members or to discover more about their own heritage) do not realise that their DNA could be used for such a purpose as to possibly convict a family member of a crime.
In this situation, there is a balance that needs to be reached between the privacy and rights of individuals and the public good.
We have all seen and heard the slogan “defund the police” flash across our social media and news platforms since the tragic death of George Floyd on 25 May 2020.
But what would defunding the police look like?
The first image that pops to mind is complete chaos. Pitchforks, civil unrest and anarchy.
The idea of cutting back police budgets has long been dismissed as a fantasy of the far-left. We have been conditioned to believe that police presence in our communities is essential for order and justice.
Yet, our prisons are overcrowded, our courts are saturated and crime rates are through the roof.
Does our police force actually serve the community in the way we are conditioned to believe it does? Or is it a case of Albert Einstein’s “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”.
In Minneapolis, nine members of the City Council have voted, creating a veto-proof supermajority, vowing to dismantle policing as the city knows it, and rebuilding a new community model of public safety that actually keeps the community safe.
Defunding the police is the idea that crime prevention is more effective than crime-fighting. Rather than funding the police, should our taxpayer dollars be directed elsewhere?
The funding that is currently directed to our police force, could go towards creating spaces for mental health service providers, social workers, victim and survivor advocates, religious leaders, neighbours, healers, and friends.
What might come surprisingly to some, is there are already community-based justice reinvestment projects in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory.
For example, in Bourke, a small community in rural New South Wales, the Maranguka Justice Reinvestment Project is already implemented. The initiative at its simplest, focuses on family strength, youth development and adult empowerment. It limits the amount of contact members of the community have with police.
The result? The local incarceration rate has plummeted.
This is only one of many initiatives already having success at preventing crime around our country.
However, these programs lack funding. The justice reinvestment programs in Australia rely on philanthropic donations for their survival.
This returns to us to our initial question. But what would and more importantly COULD defunding the police look like?
Have you ever changed your name? Have you changed your address? Have you changed your job or changed careers? Chances are that you may have lost track of some of your super. You could have hundreds, or even thousands of dollars in a superannuation account that you either didn’t know about, or have forgotten about.
Finding your lost super and bringing it all together saves on fees and makes it easier to manage.
Find your super
Your lost super may be held by your super fund or by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). It’s easy to find your lost super online through the ATO:
- Go to my.gov.au.
- Log in or create an account.
- Link your myGov account to the ATO.
- Select ‘Super’.
This will allow you to:
- see details of all your super accounts, including any you’ve lost or forgotten about
- find any ATO-held super — this is held on your behalf when your super fund, your employer or the government can’t find an account to deposit your super into
- consolidate your super into a single fund
If you’ve recently opened a new super account, it may take up to six months to appear on myGov.
You can also find lost super using a paper form. See searching for lost super on the ATO website.
Combining your super accounts
Having more than one account means paying more fees. Combining your super into one account will save you money.
You need to know which one of your super funds you will consolidate your super into. See our tips on consolidating your super.
We are all very aware of the Public Health Direction regarding Movement and Gathering, social distancing seems to be a term you can’t go a day without hearing now.
There are a number of provisions under the Movement and Gathering Direction such as outdoor gatherings of a maximum of 20 people, and gatherings of up to 20 persons in non-residences.
Further, Part 13 of the Direction states that a person who is leaving their principal place of residence must practice social distancing while outside their principal place of residence, to the extent reasonably practicable.
But, are there actually penalties for not abiding by these Directions?
The answer is yes.
You will be committing an offence if you fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the Directions.
Failure to comply is contained under Section 362D of the Public Health Act 2005.
The maximum penalty is 100 penalty units, being $13,345.00.
There has been an uproar of Australian’s expressing their anger to all those who are not complying with the directions. People are angry, they are seeking those who blatantly do not comply with Directions to be fined and large gatherings to be dispersed promptly.
The Australians who have lost their jobs, had their businesses closed down or are unable to see friends and family are angry. Australians who have had to cancel a wedding, bury a loved one without a funeral are angry. Businesses who have had to shut down and people are in increasing debt are angry.
We want to return to our new normal and to be able to travel, see loved ones, re-open businesses and get back to life.
There is increasing concern with the current worldwide events regarding the public gatherings of thousands, parties being thrown of more than 20 people and social distancing not being complied with.
Many are saying that such gatherings need to be delayed. Not forever, just not NOW.
State Governments have refused to return to the footy, opera or a play at this current time yet many are putting others at risk of a further outbreak.
Stage 2 is in full force currently and if there are no further outbreaks we will move to Stage 3 on 10 July 2020 which will allow a lot of businesses re-open, workers to return and potentially movement across the borders.
What are your thoughts?
"*" 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.
