Brooke Winter Solicitor, Author at Brooke Winter Solicitors

Who is Jackie Trad?

Jackie Trad is the current sitting Member of South Brisbane and up until recently was the Queensland’s Deputy Premier and Treasurer of Queensland from 2015 to 2020.

Crime and Corruption Commission

The Crime and Corruption Commission is an independent statutory body which is formulated to reduce the incidence of major crime and corruption in the public sector in Queensland.

The CCC investigate crime and corruption and have oversight of the public sector including Police and protected witnesses.

Between 1 July 2019 and 31 December 2019 there have been 55 people charged with 197 criminal offences, 1,620 corruption complaints received and $5,379,000.00 proceeds of crime confiscated due to the CCC’s involvement.

The CCC conduct investigations and hold special powers under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000.

Under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001, there are two types of corrupt conduct, Type A and Type B.

Type A corrupt conduct involves conduct that affects, or could affect, a public officer. Examples of Type A corrupt conduct include fraud and theft, extortion, unauthorised release of information, obtaining or offering a secret commission and nepotism.

Type B corrupt conduct involves specific types of conduct that impairs, or could impair, public confidence in public administration. Examples of Type B corrupt conduct include fraud relating to an application for a permit or licence, dishonesty obtaining public funds or State assets and evasion of State tax.

But why?

On 9 May 2020 the CCC released a short statement indicating it is in the public interest to investigate allegation of corrupt conduct relating to the principal of the Inner-City South State Secondary College.

Specifically, the formal investigation relates to the recruitment and selection process for the principal of the College and whether or not there was any interference in the process by Jackie.

Did Jackie Trad have to resign?

No, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced the resignation and stated Jackie had “made the decision in the best interests of her family, the community and the party. She does not want there to be any distraction for the government as we respond to the COVID crisis, and where the government must be focused on recovery and jobs.”

This is Jackie’s second investigation in relation to her conduct within 12 months, previously she was investigated and cleared in relation to allegations of corruption over the purchase of a $700,000.00 investment property.

Possible Repercussions

The CCC investigates and makes recommendations about what should happen to the public official or body.
The CCC cannot find a public servant guilty of a crime or discipline them for misconduct. The CCC can simply recommend that the public servant be prosecuted for a crime or for the public official’s employer to discipline them.

In 2005 / 2006 the CCC (then called the Crime and Misconduct Commission) investigated the then Serving Health Minister Gordon Nuttall who was later charged with Corruption offences and sentenced to 7 years jail.

Well the world has been turned upside down in the last couple of months and everyone has had to very quickly learn to adapt to changes in their personal, social and work lives. We are so fortunate in Australia to have avoided the sad and tragic circumstances that we are seeing overseas. Our prayers and thoughts go out to the family and friends of the victims of this wicked virus. The year 2020 will most certainly be remembered and recorded in the history books as a very dark year indeed. Working through this Covid-19 Era has thrown up so many challenges for business and practice alike. Simply doing business is challenging in itself, but doing it successfully is a whole other ball game.

Events unfolded very quickly in March 2020. On Wednesday 8th March the first rumblings were heard amongst the legal fraternity in Queensland when Practice Direction 2 of 2020 was issued by the Chief Magistrate. Three days later the World Health Organisation (WHO) officially declared the virus a pandemic. Public safety quickly consumed and dominated the media cycle. On Friday 27th March 2020 a blow was struck amongst practitioners as a result of the release of Practice Direction 3 of 2020.

Whilst the direction was necessary, it effectively stopped most of the practitioners work in the Magistrates Court, effectively putting a halt on income. Most firms have high overheads just to keep the doors open, and much sleep was lost over the following days trying to navigate a way through these uncharted waters. Thankfully the Federal Government announced the JobKeeper program which meant that large numbers of people didn’t lose their jobs. In early April the practice Directions were amended allowing a lot more work to be done in the Magistrates Court. The court is now utilising technology to allow practitioners and clients to ‘appear’ remotely.

So, how are practitioners practically dealing with the strange new practice of appearing remotely in court?

Traditionally, a Criminal Lawyer will have a face to face initial consult with their client in their office, mapping out the path to deal with the police charge. These meetings are so important and allow the practitioner the opportunity to assess the capacity of the client, their actual understanding of the matter, and develop an insight into the client so that comprehensive instructions can be obtained. There will of course usually be preliminary court appearances and adjournments requiring the Solicitor to appear in court with or without their client. There will typically be subsequent face to face conferences with their client, and then the final court appearance in court at either a sentence or a trial.

On all of these occasions the lawyer will be in their traditional ‘uniform’ donned in a suit and their polished shoes. They look and act the part and display a professional persona which instils confidence in the client. The art of advocacy is a refined skill and the reading of subtle cues from the bench often defines the way in which the submission is delivered. There is so much more to communication other than just the spoken word.

With the recent Covid changes, the practitioner does not have the benefit of these interpersonal experiences which is so important in the work that we do. Times have clearly changed with the introduction of the Courts Practice Directions together with Social Distancing necessities, and we as practitioners must adapt. Many lawyers are now not meeting clients face to face and are obtaining instructions electronically (via the telephone or on videolink platforms such as Skype or Zoom). Court matters are conducted remotely with the client and Solicitor separately telephoning the court to appear remotely. The Solicitor is probably conducting the appearance in their home office or at their kitchen table, and probably in a T-shirt and shorts – and certainly not in their polished shoes. The client loses that psychological benefit of having a confident and well dressed lawyer standing next to them in court.

A plea of guilty is conducted remotely with all of the prosecution and defence material exchanged and provided to the court in advance of the appearance. Submissions are made over the telephone, with the practitioner often having an image in their mind of appearing physically in court – just to maintain their sense of perspective and reality. Those subtle cues are absent and sometimes replaced with pregnant pauses from all parties over the telephone.

But if conducted correctly, the substance and persuasiveness of the plea is not lost, and there is no nett detriment to the client. The technology clearly exists to allow for electronic appearances, it is working now, but will it continue to work post Covid-19? Is it appropriate for it to continue post Covid-19? No doubt there will be developments in the technology which will enhance the procedures. Will virtual appearances become the new norm? Things will return in some way to the way that they were, but how quickly and to what extent – well, only time will tell.

The QLS offer a fantastic support to all members through the Lawcare program which can be accessed through the QLS website. Lifeline also offers emergency support on 131 114. Stay safe and look after each other.

Brooke Winter

Brooke is a Criminal Lawyer on the Gold Coast and manages the practice Brooke Winter Solicitors

[email protected]

COVID-19 and Prisons: Are Governments Doing Enough to Protect Prisoners?

Earlier this week, National Cabinet agreed on a set of national guidelines to deal with the risk of COVID-19 spreading in prisons.

The states and territories agreed to provide personal protective equipment to prisoners as a priority, but only when more supplies are available and only if COVID-19 is found in prisons. National Cabinet also decided to create “safe travel plans” to help Indigenous prisoners return safely to their communities upon release from jail.

However, some advocates are arguing that keeping people in prison during the coronavirus pandemic is like sentencing them to death.

Debbie Kilroy from Sisters Inside, a prisoner advocacy group, has warned that there will inevitably be an outbreak in a prison, and it will have serious consequences. Prison staff are coming and going from prisons and, she argues, if a staff member brings the virus into a prison, it will spread in the same way that it has spread on cruise ships.

Ms Kilroy has said that prisoners are concerned for their welfare. She says they are lacking essentials such as soap to protect themselves from COVID-19 and argues that National Cabinet’s guidelines are “window dressing” and not enough is being done to protect the health of prisoners.

Corrections authorities have a duty of care to prisoners and staff

The Supreme Court of Victoria recently found that Corrections were not fulfilling their duty of care to prisoners. Authorities had failed to observe some hygiene guidelines to reduce the risk of prisoners contracting COVID-19.

Correctional officers are also at risk if there is an outbreak among prisoners and there are concerns that they are not being provided with enough personal protective equipment.

What could be done to address these concerns?

There have been calls for more personal protective equipment to be supplied to prisons.

Ms Kilroy wants independent boards to be established and provided with the ability to release some prisoners for the duration of the pandemic.

Dr Thalia Anthony from the University of Technology Sydney suggests that prisoners could be released into home detention or hotel rooms.

Dr Anthony notes that in New South Wales, laws have been passed in response to the pandemic to allow for the release of prisoners and reduce overcrowding. However, she says that the laws have not been properly applied to achieve this purpose, with no “systemic release” of prisoners taking place.

As COVID-19 restrictions are gradually eased, Dr Anthony is concerned that there could be further outbreaks of coronavirus and that prisons are particularly at risk. Along with other legal experts, she is calling on state and territory governments to quickly implement reforms to protect prisoners.

The Queensland Government has started easing COVID-19 restrictions. The general requirement to stay at home unless you have to leave the house to do something essential will still apply. However, from 2 May 2020 you will also be allowed to travel for recreation within 50km of your home.

If you leave your home for recreation or an essential activity, you should only go with people you live with, one person who does not live with you, or more than one person if you need assistance from more than one carer.

People aged 70 or over and those with chronic conditions should continue to avoid going outside.

Everyone should maintain appropriate social distancing.

What am I allowed to do now?

The Government has given some examples of recreational activities, including:

Going for a picnic
Going to the beach
Visiting a national park, although some of these are still closed
Driving a car, motorbike, boat, jet ski, or other vehicle for non-essential reasons
Supervising a learner driver as long as they are a member of your household
Shopping for non-essential items

You still cannot go camping at this stage and public playgrounds remain closed.

These recreational activities are in addition to the essential activities that people are already allowed to do. You are allowed to travel more than 50km from your house for work and other essential reasons, but not for recreational activities.

Although you are allowed to travel up to 50km for recreational activities, the Government is still encouraging people not to travel between major cities. You should also not stop to eat takeaway food at cafes or restaurants, but you can eat in a park.

You are allowed two visitors at your house at the same time. You can visit a parent, child, or partner who is more than 50km away if this is part of your normal routine and they require your assistance. You are also allowed to visit terminally ill relatives.

Police can issue fines of up to $1,330 for individuals and $6,670 for corporations if you do not comply with these rules.

We should all use common sense when deciding whether to go out and who to let into our homes so we can keep COVID-19 under control and avoid returning to tougher restrictions.

Publication of Names in Sexual Assault Matters in Tasmania

People charged with sexual crimes can often experience great shame and embarrassment. It is unsurprising that those charged sexual crimes can be concerned about whether their name will be published in the news media or online, this is especially the case when there is media attention surrounding case. One such recent example is the trial, and successful High Court Appeal of Cardinal George Pell.

The Parliament of Tasmania has recently amended section 194K of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), in relation to the naming of persons who are victims of sexual crimes committed against the law of Tasmania, the amendments do not relate to Commonwealth crimes. Following the amendments, there can be no reporting or publishing of identifying information, nor can a person or corporation cause identifying information to be published about the alleged victim, or any witness in the case. However, the name of a person accused of a sexual offence in Tasmania can be published in the media.

For the purposes of section 194K of the Evidence Act, the Parliament has defined identifying information as including the name, address, school, place of employment and any other reference or allusion that identifies, or is likely to lead to the identification of, the alleged victim or witness, and also includes pictures or images of the alleged victim or witnesses.

The word publish has also been given a specific legal definition. Publish means to make available to the public, or a section of the public, by any means, including but not limited to –

(a) publication in a newspaper, journal, periodical, book or other document; and

(b) broadcast by radio, television, wireless or other telegraphy; and

(d) in print, or electronic, communication meant for one or more persons; and

(e) public exhibition, spectacle or event; and

(f) such other prescribed means of making information available to the public.

This will mean that commentary online, for example, a Facebook or Twitter post, or even a private email, may breach the prohibition if a post or email includes identifying information of any alleged victim or witness.

However, the most important amendment relates to publication of names after the completion of the criminal trial process. A person or corporation may publish the names of victims, and witnesses, if:

The person publishing the information has a Court order; or
The alleged victim is over age 18, freely consents to the publication of the information in writing, and the criminal proceedings have been finalised.

Importantly, a person who breaches the prohibition on reporting on the identifying information of any alleged victim or witness is committing a Contempt of Court, which is a serious crime. The penalty for Contempt of Court includes imprisonment.

If you require information or advice how s194K Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) might apply in your case, or if you need advice in relation to a sexual offence please contact us to obtain legal advice catered to your situation on 1300 066 669.

How to Stay Safe Online While Working from Home During the COVID-19 Crisis

Many people are working from home for the first time due to the restrictions put in place during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Working from home can put us all at risk of cybercrime, which can have serious impacts for us personally and for our employers. It is therefore important for all of us to take precautions to protect ourselves online.

What can I do to protect my cyber security?

There are some simple steps suggested by the Australian Cyber Security Centre that we can take to improve our cyber security.

Keep a look out for scams.

The upheaval in work arrangements brought about by COVID-19 has made businesses an appealing target for online criminals, who may see this as an opportunity to take advantage of new and potentially unsophisticated systems.

Cybercriminals are likely to attempt scams to get people’s money and information, and to access their online systems. To avoid being the victim of a scam, ensure that you are attentive and use your critical thinking if you receive suspicious calls, texts, or emails. Do not open attachments or click on links unless you trust the sender. Think carefully before providing any personal or bank details online. If you are not certain of the sender’s identity, stick to contact methods that you have previously used.

Strengthen your passwords.

A strong password can go a long way towards preventing cybercrime. Ensure you set detailed and unique passwords on all of your devices.

Make sure you use different passwords for every website and app, especially if you have personal or bank details saved on the website. If you use the same password for every website, all of your accounts will be at risk if one of them is compromised.

Use multi-factor authentication where possible.

Multi-factor authentication can be enabled on your devices and online accounts and involves using multiple layers of authentication. This means that even if someone obtains one type of authentication (e.g., a password), they will not be able to access your device or account without the other types of authentication.

Multi-factor authentication can include something you know (e.g., a password or answers to security questions), something you physically hold (e.g., a card or token), and/or something you inherently have (e.g., a retina pattern or fingerprint).

Carry out software updates.

Ensure that you allow your devices to carry out automatic updates as software updates are often developed in response to security issues and could include new security features.

Use a Virtual Private Network (VPN).

VPN connections allow you to connect your devices to your work network while ensuring the security of your remote network access and web browsing.

If your employer requires you to use a certain VPN, ensure that you understand their VPN policies and procedures.

Only use Wi-Fi connections that you trust.

Free Wi-Fi is not secure and you are potentially exposing your web browsing to criminals if you use it. Some cybercriminals create Wi-Fi hotspots that look legitimate and use them to take your personal details and communications.

Only use Wi-Fi connections that you trust, such as your home or mobile phone internet.

When you are not using your devices, ensure they are kept secure.

Gaining access to your data is easier when criminals can physically access your devices. It is important to always keep your devices secure when you are not using them, for example by locking them and keeping them somewhere safe.

You should also think carefully before giving permission to someone to use your work devices. If you let your children or family members use them, they could accidentally share important data, delete information, or download harmful software.

If you share devices with your family, ensure that they use accounts that are separate from your work account and that they set unique passwords.

Try not to use portable storage devices such as USBs and external hard drives.

While portable storage devices can be a useful way to back up data or take files home from work, they are easy to lose. Additionally, they can carry malware that could infect your devices at home.

If you can, try to move data in a safer way, for example through cloud storage. If you use a portable storage device, secure it using encryption and passwords.

Only rely on trusted sources of information.

Online criminals are known to take advantage of popular issues like COVID-19 to spread false information and scam people. They may do this by cloning, imitating, or making websites to appear legitimate, or by circulating disinformation through social media.

Make sure you only rely on sources of information that you trust and think critically about new sources of information before you use them.

Virgin Australia Enters Voluntary Administration: What Does this Mean for Travellers?

Virgin Australia has formally announced today that it has entered voluntary administration. Partners from Deloitte have been appointed voluntary administrators of the company and several of its subsidiaries.

Virgin is carrying about $5 billion in debt and has not posted a profit in the last seven years. After its planes were largely grounded last month due to the coronavirus pandemic, it has been unable to stay afloat.

The airline employs around 10,000 staff whose futures with the company are now uncertain.

The Federal Government has so far refused to bail Virgin out. The Queensland Government has made an offer to keep the company’s headquarters in Queensland and the New South Wales Government has expressed interest in making a competing offer. However, both Governments’ offers would likely require financial support from the Federal Government to go ahead.

What is voluntary administration?

When companies are in financial trouble, they may be put into voluntary administration. This means administrators will be appointed to quickly make decisions about the company’s future. The administrators may decide to return the company to its directors, approve a deed of company arrangement (agreement on the future of the company including how debts will be paid) to try to salvage the company, or wind up the company and appoint a liquidator. The administrators will meet with creditors to work out a solution.

What will happen to my tickets?

Virgin Australia reportedly has almost $1.2 billion in prepaid tickets. The fate of these bookings will be decided by the administrators. If the administrators can salvage the company, flights may go ahead as planned and there may be no need to repay customers.

If Virgin cannot survive, the administrators will need to pay out debts in a certain order. Consumers are usually paid after other groups of creditors such as employees and shareholders have been paid out. There may be no money left to repay customers by this point. If this happens and you bought your tickets on a credit card, you may be able to get your money back from your credit card provider.

Another issue to be determined is what will happen with points earned through the Velocity frequent flyer scheme if Virgin does not survive. This program is run by a separate company, but it is uncertain whether customers would be able to redeem their points and how this would work.

Will the cost of flights could go up in the future?

If Virgin Australia were to collapse, Qantas would lose its major competitor and would have a near monopoly on the airline industry. Without major competition, there are concerns that the cost of flights could skyrocket to the disadvantage of travellers.

There are further concerns that the loss of Virgin could cripple the tourism industry in Australia, particularly in regional areas which are already reeling from the COVID-19 crisis.

Travellers, businesses, and governments will be looking on anxiously as the administrators decide Virgin Australia’s future.

Defendants generally cannot be punished for the same act or omission twice unless an Act expressly allows this to occur.

The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) seemingly allows police to charge defendants with both a contravention of a domestic violence order (DVO) and a related criminal offence based on the same facts. Section 138 provides:

An application under this Act may be made, and a court may deal with the application, even if a person concerned in the application has been charged with an offence arising out of conduct on which the application is based.

…

(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that, subject to this section, an application, proceeding or order under this Act in relation to the conduct of a person does not affect—

(a) any proceeding for an offence against the person arising out of the same conduct; or

(b) any civil liability of the person.

(4) The person may be punished for the offence mentioned in subsection (3)(a) despite any order made against the person under this Act.

However, it is less clear whether this provision allows defendants to be punished for both the contravention and the other criminal offence. Section 138 has been interpreted in two recent cases with conflicting results. In R v MKW [2014] QDC 300, the defendant pleaded guilty to contravening a domestic violence order and was sentenced, but was then charged with grievous bodily harm for the act that formed the basis of the contravention charge. His Honour Judge O’Brien found that section 138 allowed the criminal proceedings for grievous bodily harm to continue. However, His Honour noted that the rule about double punishment needed to be taken into account in sentencing.

In QPS v DLA [2015] QMC 6, the defendant was charged with a contravention and using a carriage service to menace or harass. The same facts were used as the basis for each charge. His Honour Magistrate Bucknall found that section 138 did not expressly allow for a defendant to be punished twice for different criminal offences arising from the same act or omission. His Honour ordered a permanent stay of proceedings for the contravention charge. His Honour also suggested that convicting and not further punishing a defendant for a contravention in this situation is not a suitable resolution due to the effect of a prior conviction on penalties for future contraventions.

Due to the inconsistent findings in these cases, the law is unsettled and it is uncertain whether defendants can be punished for both contraventions and related criminal offences arising out of the same act or omission.

What does this mean for my criminal proceedings?

Defendants can be sentenced to higher penalties for contravening a DVO if they have been convicted of a domestic violence offence (including a contravention) in the five years before committing the new contravention. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the options you have to avoid being convicted for a contravention when you are also charged with a related criminal offence.

If you are charged with both a contravention and a related criminal offence (e.g., an assault offence), you or your lawyer will need to closely examine the facts being alleged by the police and consider whether the facts of each offence are the same. If they are, you have the option of negotiating with the Police Prosecutor to have the contravention charge withdrawn. If this is unsuccessful, you can apply to the Court to stay proceedings for the contravention.

The Pell Verdict

Cardinal George Pell walked free from prison yesterday following the High Court of Australia’s decision to grant special leave for him to appeal his convictions for sexual offences against children, allow his appeal, and quash his convictions.

Pell was sentenced last year to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and eight months after being found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four counts of committing an indecent act with, or in the presence of, a child. The offences were alleged to have occurred in the 1990s while Pell was the archbishop of Melbourne.

Pell maintained his innocence throughout the court process. He spent over 400 days in custody before being released yesterday.

Some are arguing that the High Court’s decision will undermine public confidence in the jury system and even the justice system as a whole. Ultimately, the decision highlights how difficult it is to successfully prosecute historical child sexual offences due to the lack of corroborating evidence in many of these cases and the high standard of proof in criminal cases.

The Appeals Process

Pell was found guilty of the charges in the County Court of Victoria in 2018. He then pursued appeals in the Victorian Court of Appeal and the High Court.

Victorian Court of Appeal

Pell unsuccessfully appealed the verdicts in the Victorian Court of Appeal in 2019.

Leave is required to appeal a conviction in the Court of Appeal and there are limited grounds for an appeal. Pell’s counsel argued three grounds of appeal. Two of these related to the conduct of the trial. Leave to appeal was unanimously refused on those grounds.

Leave to appeal was granted on the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. Pell’s lawyers argued that based on all of the evidence, it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the complainant’s evidence alone.

However, the appeal on this ground was dismissed by a 2-1 majority.

High Court of Australia

Pell applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, with the judgment being handed down yesterday.

It is very difficult to gain special leave to appeal to the High Court. Strict criteria apply and the Court has wide discretion to refuse leave to appeal. The criteria include whether the case involves a question of law that is of public importance or requires differences of opinion between different courts about the law to be resolved, and whether the interests of justice require the High Court to consider the case.

Pell’s lawyers applied for special leave to appeal on two grounds. Firstly, that the Court of Appeal majority made a mistake by finding that their belief in the complainant’s testimony required Pell’s lawyers to establish that the offending was “impossible” in order to raise a reasonable doubt. Secondly, that the Court of Appeal majority made a mistake by concluding that the verdicts were not unreasonable as there was a reasonable doubt about whether Pell had the opportunity to be able to commit the offences.

The seven High Court Justices unanimously granted special leave, allowed the appeal, and quashed Pell’s convictions.

Reasonable Doubt

The key issue raised in these appeals was whether the jury’s guilty verdicts were unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence to prove Pell’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In criminal cases, the prosecution must always provide enough evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high standard of proof. If a jury has any reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offence, it should not find them guilty.

The prosecution had relied on the credibility and reliability of the testimony given by the complainant to convince the jury of Pell’s guilt. This was the only direct evidence of his guilt.

The defence relied on evidence from “opportunity witnesses” – people who testified that Pell could not have had the opportunity to commit the offences because he usually stood on the steps of the cathedral after mass to greet people, he was never by himself when he was robed, and there was a “hive of activity” near the location of the alleged offences after mass.

The Court of Appeal majority accepted the evidence of the complainant and found that it was sufficient to prove Pell’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They found that no witness could say with certainty that the routines described by the opportunity witnesses were never departed from.

In contrast, while the High Court did not find the complainant to be dishonest or unreliable, it did decide that the evidence of the opportunity witnesses meant that the jury should have had a reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty. The evidence of the complainant alone was not enough to find Pell guilty when weighed against the evidence given by the opportunity witnesses of Pell’s practices and activities.

The High Court’s decision underscores how difficult it is to prove historical child sexual offences beyond a reasonable doubt when there is little evidence to corroborate the complainant’s testimony.

The Jury System

The High Court’s decision has also raised questions about the place of juries in the justice system and drawn accusations that it will undermine public confidence in the justice system.

A jury consisting of a dozen of Pell’s peers had heard all of the evidence and deliberated for about five days before finding him guilty. In most cases, this is the end of the story.

Juries are regarded as having the skills to reach a proper verdict and are considered to be an important feature of the justice system. Because juries are seen as fundamental to the value and reliability of the justice system, judges are often reluctant to overturn their verdicts.

The High Court’s decision in this case reminds us that, despite the high regard that juries are held in, their decisions are not immune from scrutiny. They sometimes make mistakes. Regardless of individual opinions on this decision, it is important that there is a check on the power of juries.

Brooke Winter Solicitors

8 April 2020

Charges:

Did Drive U.I.L. (motor vehicle/tram/train/vessel).

Court Attended:

Southport Magistrates Court

Attendance Date:

November 2021

Overview of Case:

Our client was charged with the offence of Did Drive U.I.L under section 79(1)(a) of the Transport Operation (Road Use Management) Act. The maximum penalty for this offence upon conviction is a penalty not exceeding 28 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 9 months. This matter proceeds in summary jurisdiction.

Our client had a BAC reading 0.188% and maintained that they wished to plead guilty to the offence.

We provided our client a detailed list of preparations to complete prior to finalizing the matter in court. This included things like counselling, traffic offender courses, and references. Our client completed their preparations as suggested.

Outcome:

Upon sentence, the Magistrate heard submissions. After successful submissions made by Defence, our client received an appropriate fine and only 9 months licence disqualification. This was an excellent result.