The Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (the Act) was passed on 28 August 2025. Police Protection Directions (PPDs) commenced statewide on 1 January 2026.

Prior to January 2026, when dealing with domestic violence (DV), police would often order a Police Protection Notice (PPN) in conjunction with an application to the court for a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO). A PPN can be issued by the police if immediate protection is required until the DVPO court date. DVPO’s are made for a standard period of five (5) years unless a Court is satisfied that there are reasons to justify a shorter order.

A PPD is an on-the-spot direction issued by a police officer and is valid for 12 months. PPD’s are only to be issued where it would not be more appropriate for the matter to proceed to court.

A PPD requires the respondent to not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved and any other named persons on the PPD.

Contravening a PPD is a criminal offence. The maximum penalty for contravening a PPD is 120 penalty units or 3 years imprisonment.

Upon the expiration or ending of a PPD, the protection it provides also ends. The PPD cannot be extended or reissued for the same respondent and aggrieved.

Issuance of a PPD

Police may issue a PPD when identifying or responding to a complaint, report or circumstance of DV. A PPD can only be issued when police reasonably believe:

• The aggrieved and respondent are in a ‘relevant relationship’ (intimate personal, family or informal care relationship under the Act).
• The respondent has committed DV against the aggrieved.
• A PPD is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from further DV.
• None of the circumstances where a PPD must not be issued apply (see below).
• It would not be more appropriate for an application for a protection order to be made to a court.

When issuing a PPD, the police officer must consider:

• Any views or wishes expressed by the aggrieved about whether an application for a protection order should be made.
• The domestic violence and criminal history of the respondent and aggrieved.

A PPD starts from when it is served on the respondent, or when a police officer tells the respondent about the PPD and its conditions.

PPD’s do not replace PPN’s or DVPO’s. PPD’s are a new way to protect victims without having to proceed to a court.

Where a PPD Must Not be Issued

PPDs cannot be issued where a police officer reasonably believes any of the following circumstances apply:

• The respondent or aggrieved is a child, to ensure children have access to legal representation, and other benefits and supports provided by the court process.
• The respondent or aggrieved is a police officer, to ensure DV matters involving police are not handled internally.
• The respondent should be taken into custody in relation to the DV, ensuring the severity of the matter is acknowledged.
• A DVPO or recognised interstate order relating to the parties is in force or has previously been in force.
• A PPD against the respondent is in force or has previously been in force.
• The respondent has been convicted of a DV offence within the previous 2 years.
• A proceeding for a DV offence against the respondent has commenced but remains ongoing.
• A proceeding for a DVPO has started but not been finalised.
• The respondent has used, or threatened to use, an offensive weapon or instrument to commit DV.
• There are indications that both persons in the relationship are in need of protection, and the person most in need of protection cannot be identified.
• Other conditions (see above) are needed to protect a child of the aggrieved, or a child who usually lives with the aggrieved, from associated DV or being exposed to DV.

If a PPD names a child, or the conditions of a PPD would prevent or limit contact between the respondent and their child, the PPD cannot be issued where a police officer knows or reasonably believes:

• A family law order relating to the child is in force.
• A child protection order or care agreement relating to the child is in force.
• A child protection or family law proceeding relating to the child has started but is not finalised.

Standard Conditions

Standard conditions of a PPD include that the respondent:

• Must be of good behaviour toward the aggrieved and any named persons; and
• Must not commit DV or associated DV against the aggrieved or named persons; and
• Must not expose a named child to DV; and
• Must not organise, encourage, ask, tell, force or engage another person to commit DV on their behalf.

 Other Conditions

Other conditions that may be included beyond the standard conditions include:

• No-contact conditions that prohibit the respondent from contacting, approaching or attempting to locate the aggrieved.
• Ouster conditions which can prevent access to certain locations.
• Return conditions allowing the respondent to return to a place for a specific time to retrieve personal property, under supervision of police.
• Cool-down conditions which can temporarily restrict access to certain locations and prevent the respondent from approaching or contacting the aggrieved for a certain period.

If a child is included in an order, and that order requires conditions other than standard conditions for protection, the matter must proceed to a court.

Reviewing a PPD

A PPD can be reviewed via a police review or a court review.

Police review

The respondent, aggrieved, a named person or a person authorised to represent can apply for a Police Review within 28 days of the issuance of a PPD. This period can be extended with the permission of the Police Commissioner.

A named person may only seek a review to remove their name from the PPD or change any condition(s) on the PPD that relate to the named person.

A court review may be applied for at any stage during the police review; this will immediately cease the police review.

A police review can have the following outcomes:

• Confirmation of the PPD, meaning it will continue in force; or
• Revocation of the PPD, meaning it will be taken to have never been issued and will not form part of the respondent’s DV or criminal history; or
• Revocation of the PPD and the issuance of a new PPD that has different conditions or different named persons (but only if the respondent and the aggrieved are the same as the initial PPD); or
• Revocation of the PPD and make an application for a protection order for the parties or issue a PPN; or
• Revocation of the PPD and take other action under section 100 of the DFVP Act.

The Reviewing Officer will be a rank higher than the officer who approved the issuing of the PPD. The Reviewing Officer will either be a Senior Sergeant, Inspector or higher.

Police will engage with the parties to the PPD and seek their response regarding the application received for a Police Review to support the decision-making required by the officer.

Court Review

The respondent, the aggrieved or an authorised person for the aggrieved may apply to the Magistrates Court for a Court Review. A Court Review can be sought at any time while a PPD is in force. A named person cannot apply for a court review.

Once the PPD and grounds have been filed with the Magistrates court, the PPD itself is taken to be an application for a protection order.

Upon hearing the review, the court will consider the protective needs of the parties and whether a protection order is necessary or desirable at the time of the review. The duration of a protection order made by the court will be five years if no other period is stated by the Court.

Statutory Review

The legislative provisions for PPDs must be reviewed as soon as practicable after 1 January 2028

Our team are experts in domestic violence law. 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.

History

Daniel’s Law is a piece of legislation brought in to force by the Crisafulli Government through the passing of the Community Protection and Public Child Sex Offender Register (Daniel’s Law) Act 2025.

Daniel’s Law was introduced to the Queensland Parliament on 27 August 2025 and received Royal Assent on 6 November 2025. The legislation fully commenced on 31 December 2025. Daniel’s law brought with it Queensland’s first public child sex offender registry.

The legislation was a result of more than two decades of lobbying by Bruce and Denise Morcombe following the death of their child, Daniel Morcombe, in 2003.

The Registry

Queenslanders will be able to access information on the public child sex offender registry through a three-tiered disclosure framework:

• Tier 1: A public website listing reportable offenders who have breached obligations and whose whereabouts are unknown to police. The offenders full name, photograph and year of birth will be accessible by members of the public.
• Tier 2: An online application for Queensland residents to view photographs of reportable offenders living in their local area.

Tier 2 includes offenders who:

• • Are repeat offenders;
  • Have lifetime reporting obligations under the  Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004;
  • Are under Dangerous Prisoners Sexual Offenders Act 2003 supervision;
  • Are considered by the Commissioner to pose a serious risk to children.
• Tier 3: An online application for parents and guardians to confirm the offender status of a person who has had, or will have, unsupervised contact with their child.

Accessing the Registry

Tier 1: The public can access reportable offenders whose whereabouts are currently not known to police on the Daniel’s law website: Missing Reportable Offenders | Daniel’s Law

Tier 2: Individuals can access photos of serious and high-risk offenders who live in their area by submitting proof of Queensland residence, or their drivers license. Only facial images from within the applicant’s locality are shown. NOTE: names, addresses and person information regarding offenders is not disclosed.

Tier 3: To access Tier 3 information, parents must submit proof of guardianship and explain what unsupervised contact the nominated person has or may have had with a child or children.

Non-Disclosure

The public register will not enable the publication or disclosure of information:

• About an offender who is under the age of 18 years, or who was under the age of 18 years at the time they committed a child sexual offence and has not reoffended or engaged in particular conduct as an adult;
• About an offender who is a participant in a witness protection program; or
• Where a court has prohibited identification of the offender or the disclosure or publication of personal information about the offender.

Safeguards to Prevent Misuse

Daniel’s Law brought with it several new offences with the purpose of preventing misuse and publication of information accessed by the public. The law introduces penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for inciting violence or harassment using the register, and up to 3 years imprisonment for unauthorized disclosure of restricted information.

Human Rights

Daniel’s Law brings rise to several human rights concerns. Many are concerned that naming offenders publicly could violate a person’s right to privacy or indirectly expose victims. Daniel’s law reduces this risk by giving police discretion to withhold identifying information if it endangers victims.

Parliament passed Daniel’s Law utilising a direction under Section 43 of the Human Rights Act, allowing Parliament to explicitly declare that a law will operate despite being inconsistent with human rights protections.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.

Youth offending has become a key political issue in Queensland. In response to a perceived rise in youth crime, especially in regional areas, the government has introduced a raft of legislative amendments focused on tightening bail laws and increasing detention powers.

Bail Reversal and Electronic Monitoring

One major change is the reversal of the presumption of bail for serious repeat youth offenders. Under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), the burden now lies with the accused child to “show cause” why detention is not justified.

Further, the government has expanded the use of electronic monitoring devices for children as young as 15, and police have been given broader powers to breach children for minor bail infractions.

Criticism and Legal Implications

These reforms have been criticised by legal advocacy groups, including the Queensland Law Society and Youth Advocacy Centre who argue the changes undermine the principles of rehabilitation and have contributed to an increase in the number of children being held on remand.

Lawyers representing youths must be prepared to argue strongly in bail applications and be well-versed in the “show cause” provisions. Defence submissions need to focus on family support, lack of prior history, or alternatives to custody like bail support programs.

If your child or someone you know is facing charges, early legal advice is essential. Our firm regularly appears in Children’s Court matters and can help guide families through this complex system.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.

The Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council has proposed a series of changes to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to address community concerns over lenient sentencing.

Proposed reforms include creating a new sentencing guideline specifically for domestic violence offences, introducing community impact statements, and improving transparency around non-parole periods.

Further, “good character” evidence is set to be limited as part of the reform of how sexual violence cases are sentenced.

Focus on Victim Impact and Community Expectations

The reforms are designed to better reflect the harm suffered by victims and give communities a greater voice in the justice process. This includes stronger provisions for victim submissions and proposals to broadcast certain sentencing hearings. Overly prescriptive guidelines could limit judicial discretion and result in harsher outcomes for disadvantaged defendants, including those with mental health issues or Indigenous backgrounds.

Legal Implication for Defendants

This may mean greater emphasis on pre-sentence material and proactive engagement with therapeutic or rehabilitative services. Character references and psychological reports will become increasingly relevant.

Defendants facing serious charges should be aware of potential legislative changes that may affect their sentencing outcomes.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.

Queensland’s Magistrates Courts are undergoing important reforms in an effort to improve accessibility, efficiency, and transparency. These courts handle the vast majority of criminal cases in the state and are often the first point of contact between the public and the justice system.

The Queensland Government recently announced increased funding for judicial resources, including the appointment of new magistrates across busy regional and metropolitan centres. This is intended to reduce the current backlog of cases and address delays that have plagued the system, especially since COVID-19.

Technology, Accessibility, and Specialist Courts

Among the most noteworthy updates is the expansion of digital services. More court appearances are now being conducted via video link, particularly for procedural mentions and bail applications. This minimises disruption for those in custody and improves regional access to legal proceedings.

The Magistrate’s Court has also expanded its range of specialist courts and diversion programs such as the Drug and Alcohol Court, Murri Court, and the Court Link program. These alternatives focus on addressing the underlying causes of offending and aim to reduce recidivism through rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Implications for Accused Persons

For those charged with offences, these reforms could mean faster resolution of cases and greater availability of support services during proceedings. Magistrates now have more discretion to tailor proceedings based on the nature of the offence and personal circumstances, such as mental health or addiction.

Defendants and their Lawyers must be increasingly prepared to engage with specialist courts and tailor submissions accordingly. Diversionary options may offer significant benefits, particularly in cases where jail time can be avoided in favour of treatment or community based orders.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.

From 26 May 2025, Queensland has ushered in a new era of transparency and accountability in the justice system with the full commencement of the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. Among a suite of significant reforms, one major change stands out for the media and the public: accredited media entities can now apply for access to transcripts of proceedings for domestic violence order (DVO) applications.

 

What does this mean?

 

Accredited media entities are now able to apply to the court for a transcript of a DVO application proceeding under Section 32, which inserts new sections 157D and 157E into the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (DFVP). This access is designed to promote open justice and enable more balanced, accurate reporting on domestic and family violence matters, while still protecting the privacy and safety of those involved.

 

Why this Matters?

 

This reform allows the public to better understand how domestic violence cases are handled, strengthening transparency and increasing trust in the legal system. It also boosts accountability, as media scrutiny can help ensure that the justice system is working as intended and highlight areas needing improvement. By allowing media access to transcript (with de-identification requirements), reporting on domestic violence cases can be more accurate and informative, helping to educate the community while respecting victim privacy.

 

Safeguards remain in place

 

Strict safeguards remain in place, and the court retains the discretion to approve or deny transcript requests from media. Any reporting must strictly adhere to de-identification rules to prevent the exposure of victims, witnesses, or children. These measures strike a balance between the public’s right to know and the safety and dignity of those  affected by domestic violence.

 

Broader Context

 

This change is part of a broader package of reforms. to come out of the Not now, not ever report, including the criminalisation of coercive control and the introduction of an affirmative consent model. These reforms respond to recommendations from the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce and are designed to modernise Queensland’s approach to domestic and family violence, sexual offences, and victim protection.

 

Being a party to a domestic violence application can have profound impact on a person’s life. At our firm, we understand the sensitive and serious nature of domestic violence orders and are committed to providing compassionate yet robust legal advocacy for our clients. Our experienced solicitors represent clients across New South Wales, Tasmania, the Gold Coast, North Queensland, and throughout Australia, ensuring they receive fair treatment and a thorough defence in court. If you are facing an application for a domestic violence order, contact our criminal defence team today for a confidential consultation. We are dedicated to protecting your rights and helping you navigate this challenging time with confidence.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.

$1.7 Million Awarded Against Barrister and Law Firm for Improper Conduct

In a significant legal ruling, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently awarded $1.7 million in costs personally against a barrister and a firm of solicitors. The case, Venter & Venter (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 862, serves as a stark reminder of the serious consequences of improper and unreasonable conduct in legal proceedings.

The Case Background

The underlying dispute involved a complex property matter between a former husband and wife, along with various family members and related entities. However, the focus of this decision centred on the improper conduct of the wife’s legal representatives.

During the proceedings, the wife’s legal team failed to properly manage the disclosure of crucial documents. Just one week before trial, they provided a staggering 96,000 documents to the opposing party, a move described as a “document dump.” This last-minute disclosure caused significant disruption, delaying the trial and resulting in unnecessary costs.

Despite the magnitude of this late disclosure, the wife and her legal team failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. Further, the wife had previously given an undertaking to the court that she had complied with her disclosure obligations—an undertaking that was ultimately found to be incorrect.

Court’s Findings on Legal Misconduct

The court found that:

• The wife’s legal team failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the late disclosure.
• The barrister engaged by the firm displayed a reckless indifference to truth and his professional obligations.
• The solicitors handling the matter demonstrated a lack of understanding of disclosure obligations and were uncooperative with opposing counsel’s reasonable requests for information.
• The firm and barrister misled the court and withheld relevant information, failing in their duty of candour.

The court further noted that had the legal team acted professionally and disclosed information properly, the issues could have been addressed earlier, preventing significant costs and delays. Their failure to do so resulted in considerable disruption to the orderly conduct of the trial.

Serious Consequences for Legal Practitioners

As a result of these findings, the court held that the conduct of the barrister and the law firm was improper and unreasonable, warranting an indemnity costs order. The $1.7 million costs were awarded, and they were also referred to the legal regulator for further investigation.

Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals

This case underscores the importance of:

• Adhering to Disclosure Obligations: Lawyers must ensure their clients comply with their duty to disclose relevant information in a timely manner.
• Professional Integrity: Misleading the court, whether through omission or direct misrepresentation, carries serious consequences.
• Cooperation and Transparency: Engaging professionally with opposing parties and the court can prevent unnecessary delays and cost implications.
• Ethical Responsibilities: Upholding high ethical standards is crucial to maintaining trust in the legal system and avoiding professional disciplinary action.

Protecting Your Rights with Experienced Legal Representation

Whether you are facing criminal charges or a complex legal dispute, we are committed to upholding the highest professional and ethical standards in every case we handle.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.

A recent Supreme Court ruling has reinforced the need for fairness and accuracy in parole decisions, particularly for offenders in custody or imprisonment. The case involved Chris Silk, an offender who was sentenced to five years in prison for break and enter and robbery with personal violence. His parole application was unfairly denied based on incorrect information, leading to a successful legal challenge.

What is Parole?

Parole is a system that allows eligible prisoners to serve part of their sentence outside of jail, under strict supervision. It is not an automatic right but a privilege granted based on factors such as behaviour in prison, rehabilitation efforts, and the risk posed to the community. The parole board assesses whether a prisoner, in custody in Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, or anywhere else in Australia, has made sufficient progress in addressing the causes of their offending and whether they can be safely managed outside of prison.

Parole conditions may include regular meetings with a parole officer, participation in rehabilitation programs, restrictions on travel, and requirements to avoid certain people or places. If conditions are breached, parole can be revoked, and the person may be returned to jail.

Key Findings in the Case

Justice Bradley ruled that the Parole Board acted on “an inappropriate and somewhat arrogant assumption,” failing to acknowledge Mr Silk’s participation in drug rehabilitation programs. The board also ignored the fact that parole eligibility dates are legally binding, as set by the sentencing court.

Mr Silk faced two parole refusals in 2024. After the board failed to provide timely written reasons for its decision, he pursued a statutory order of review. When the board eventually released a statement of reasons, it contained factual errors, including claims that he had not completed rehabilitation programs—despite clear evidence to the contrary.

In its statement, the board wrongly asserted that Mr Silk remained an “untreated drug offender.” However, he had successfully completed all available substance abuse programs, developed a relapse prevention plan, and remained on an opiate substitution therapy (OST) program both before and during his time in custody.

Errors Made by the Parole Board

The Supreme Court found that the Parole Board relied on irrelevant and incorrect assumptions, including a flawed belief that the sentencing court was unaware of Mr Silk’s rehabilitation efforts. The board’s failure to properly consider his parole eligibility date violated legal requirements. Justice Bradley noted that similar errors had been made in previous parole cases, suggesting a pattern of flawed decision-making.

The Parole Board’s counsel attempted to argue that the incorrect statements in its reasoning should be disregarded. However, Justice Bradley dismissed this claim, emphasising that these errors were found throughout the board’s decision-making process. The ruling made it clear that the board had failed to consider Mr Silk’s case on its merits.

As a result, the court set aside the board’s decision and ordered a reconsideration of Mr Silk’s parole application within 28 days. The Parole Board was also required to cover his legal costs.

The Importance of Legal Representation in Parole Matters

This case highlights the critical role of legal representation in challenging unjust parole decisions. Many parole refusals are based on incorrect or incomplete information, and without proper legal guidance, prisoners—whether in jail on the Gold Coast, in Queensland, New South Wales, or Tasmania—may struggle to contest these decisions effectively. A successful appeal can mean the difference between prolonged incarceration and the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.

 

The City of Moreton Bay in Queensland has recently introduced a significant change in local law, making it a criminal offence for homeless individuals to camp or sleep on public land. Effective from March 12, 2025, this new regulation could have serious legal consequences for those accused of violating the law. If you or someone you know is facing charges under this law, understanding the penalties is crucial. Here’s a breakdown of the charges and consequences.

New Legal Consequences

Under the new law, any individual caught camping on public land will face legal penalties. These penalties may include:

• Fines: The most immediate consequence for an accused offender is a fine. Rangers have begun inspecting areas where homeless individuals are known to camp, including tents and vehicles. Those found in violation of the law will be issued fines.
• Arrest and Criminal Charges: Repeat offenders or those engaging in other illegal behaviours, such as aggression, drug use, or alcohol consumption in public, could face arrest. Criminal charges could follow, leading to more serious legal consequences.
• Court Appearance: Individuals accused of violating the new law may be required to appear in court. Failure to comply with the law could lead to additional legal actions, including further fines or even jail time, depending on the severity of the offence.
• Criminal Record: A conviction in court for violating this law could result in a criminal record. This can affect future housing opportunities, employment prospects, and other aspects of an individual’s life, making it even more challenging for those already facing homelessness.

Enforcement of the Law

Rangers have already begun inspecting public areas where homeless individuals are camping. The City of Moreton Bay has emphasised the importance of maintaining public safety, citing concerns about illegal behaviours like drug use, alcohol consumption, and aggression. While the goal is to keep public spaces safe, this enforcement could have serious implications for those with no other place to go.

The Impact on Public Safety

The council’s decision to criminalise homeless camping stems from a desire to address safety and cleanliness in public spaces. They have raised concerns over increasing litter and aggressive behaviour in areas where people have been camping. While these issues need to be addressed, the new law fails to provide adequate solutions for those who are homeless and may have nowhere else to go.

What You Should Know

If you or someone you know is accused of violating this new law, it is important to understand the potential consequences. Fines, arrest, and criminal charges could significantly impact your life. Legal counsel is essential to help navigate the complexities of this law and to ensure your rights are protected.

Although this law is specific to Queensland, it highlights a growing trend seen across Australia, including in New South Wales and Tasmania, where local governments have introduced similar measures to address homelessness. However, the consequences for violating these laws may vary across states, so understanding your local regulations is key.

Our team are experts in criminal law. 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.