The new laws introduce harsher penalties for young offenders, designating 13 serious offences as adult crimes. These include:

• Serious assaults;
• Breaking and entering;
• Dangerous operation of a vehicle;
• Manslaughter;
• Murder.

Under these changes, for example, children convicted of murder must receive a life sentence, with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years.

Immediate Enforcement Actions

Since the enactment of Queensland’s “adult crime, adult time” legislation in December 2024, there have been developments in youth crime statistics and enforcement actions. In the three weeks following the introduction of the new laws, Queensland Police arrested 227 young offenders, resulting in 484 charges.

Recent data indicates that more than 50,000 youth crime offences have been committed in Queensland communities so far this year.

Concerns Over Prison Overcrowding

Queensland already detains more children than any other Australian state, and the prison system has been over capacity for a decade. The new laws are expected to further strain resources, with whistleblowers warning of “horrendous” conditions in overcrowded watch houses.

Premier Crisafulli conceded that the laws would create “real pressure” on the youth justice system but stated:

“In the long term, we have a plan to deliver a raft of other detention facilities and different options … In the short term, there will be some real pressure.”

Conclusion

The reforms have been welcomed by some victims’ rights advocates but have drawn sharp criticism from legal and human rights groups.

With concerns over prison overcrowding, legal challenges, and human rights implications, the effectiveness of the laws will likely be closely scrutinised in the months ahead.

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.

Cross-examining a witness in a domestic violence civil proceeding requires strategic questioning while adhering to the legal restrictions set out under Queensland law. In these matters, the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) governs the proceedings, including how cross-examination is conducted.

1. Understanding the Scope of Cross-Examination

Cross-examination in a civil domestic violence hearing is focused on testing the reliability and credibility of the witness, rather than proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

An applicant / respondent (or their lawyer) can question the aggrieved / respondent or other witnesses on:

• Inconsistencies in their statements (e.g., differences between their affidavit, police statement, or oral evidence).
• Lack of independent corroboration (e.g., no medical records or witness support for their claims).
• Motive for making the allegations (e.g., custody disputes or relationship breakdowns).

2. Framing Questions Effectively

When cross-examining a witness, the following strategies can be used:

• Ask Closed-Ended Questions: Instead of broad questions, use direct ones that require a yes or no answer (e.g., “You did not report this incident to police, correct?”).
• Challenge Vague Statements: If the witness makes a general claim, ask for specifics (e.g., “You stated the respondent was aggressive—what exact words did they use?”).
• Use Prior Inconsistent Statements: If the witness has provided multiple versions of events, You could highlight these inconsistencies.

Restrictions on Cross-Examination by Respondents

Under Section 151 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), a self-represented respondent is generally prohibited from cross-examining the aggrieved or certain protected witnesses in person. This restriction is designed to prevent further trauma or intimidation. For this reason, it is usually imperative to have a lawyer / and or barrister to cross examine witnesses so that the evidence can be tested.

Conclusion

Cross-examining a witness in a domestic violence civil proceeding requires careful planning and compliance with strict legal protections. If a respondent is self-represented, they cannot directly question the aggrieved and must use alternative methods approved by the court. A well-structured cross-examination can highlight inconsistencies and credibility issues while remaining within the legal framework. Seeking legal representation can significantly improve the chances of a fair outcome.

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.

Cross-examination in a Queensland Magistrates Court criminal proceeding is a crucial tool for testing the credibility, reliability, and accuracy of a prosecution witness’s evidence. The Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and common law principles govern how cross-examination is conducted. A well-executed cross-examination can expose inconsistencies, bias, or weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, potentially leading to reasonable doubt (the threshold for whether you are guilty).

1. Purpose

The objective of cross-examining a prosecution witness is to:

• Test the reliability of their evidence (e.g., are they mistaken or exaggerating).
• Expose inconsistencies in their testimony (e.g., contradictions between their statement to police and oral evidence).
• Highlight bias or motive (e.g., personal grievances, self-interest in the outcome).
• Challenge the strength of the prosecution’s case (e.g., lack of corroborating evidence).

Under Section 21 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), a witness may be cross-examined on matters relevant to the case, provided the questioning is not misleading, repetitive, or oppressive.

2. Preparing for Cross-Examination

Before questioning a witness, it is essential to:

• Review all prosecution material, including witness statements, police records, and CCTV footage (in the form of a brief of evidence).
• Identify inconsistencies between written statements and oral testimony.
• Plan a strategy—decide whether to challenge credibility / reliability or elicit admissions favourable to the defence.

The first question is whether you need to cross-examine the witness at all. You should have worked this out before the trial.

3. Key Techniques for Effective Cross-Examination
      A. Ask Leading Questions

• Leading questions suggest the answer and control the witness’s response. Example:
  • ❌ “What happened after you saw the defendant?” (Open-ended)
  • ✅ “You only saw the defendant for a few seconds, correct?” (Leading)

*There are rules governing when you can and cannot ask leading questions.

        B. Question Their Memory & Perception

• Memory fades over time, and perception can be flawed:
  • “It was dark, and you were 20 metres away. Are you sure you could clearly identify the accused?

       C. Highlight Bias or Motive

• If the witness has a reason to lie or exaggerate:
• “You have a civil case against the accused, don’t you?”

4. Legal Boundaries & Objections

Cross-examination must follow legal rules:

• No Harassment or Intimidation: The Magistrate can intervene if questioning becomes aggressive.
• No Irrelevant or Prejudicial Questions: The witness’s personal history or character cannot be attacked unless relevant under Section 20 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).
• No Hearsay Evidence: A witness cannot testify about what someone else told them unless an exception applies.

Conclusion

Cross-examining a witness in a criminal matter requires careful preparation, precise questioning, and adherence to legal rules. The goal is to highlight inconsistencies, question reliability, and cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. A skilled cross-examination can be the difference between conviction and acquittal—making legal representation crucial for anyone facing criminal charges in Queensland.

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 Benefits of Adult Restorative Justice in Queensland

Restorative Justice (RJ) is a progressive approach to addressing crime that focuses on repairing harm by facilitating dialogue between offenders, victims, and the broader community. In Queensland, adult restorative justice programs offer a range of benefits for all parties involved, emphasising accountability, healing, and community cohesion.

Benefits for Victims:

Victims of crime often seek understanding, closure, and a sense of empowerment. RJ programs in Queensland provide avenues for victims to:

• Empowerment: Victims can voice how the crime affected them and directly ask questions to the offender.
• Closure: Personal interaction with the offender can help victims process their trauma and find emotional healing.
• Restitution: Victims may receive meaningful apologies or agreed-upon reparations that address their specific needs.

Benefits for Offenders:

• Accountability: Offenders confront the personal impact of their actions, fostering a sense of responsibility.
• Rehabilitation: RJ encourages behavioural change and reduces reoffending rates.
• Reintegration: Offenders can reconnect with the community through constructive actions.
• Access to Support Services: RJ programs may connect offenders with mental health services or substance abuse programs, addressing root causes of offending.

• Alternative to Formal Punishment: Participation can lead to reduced sentences or diversion from traditional court processes.
• Faster Resolution: RJ sessions typically conclude faster than prolonged court proceedings.

• Community Reconnection: Offenders may engage in community service or other restorative actions to reintegrate positively.
• Support Networks: Programs often introduce offenders to mentors or supportive peers who guide them away from reoffending.

Benefits for the Community:

Restorative justice strengthens the broader community in several ways:

• Stronger Relationships: Community involvement in RJ fosters collective healing and mutual understanding.
• Reduced Recidivism: Studies indicate that offenders who participate in RJ are less likely to reoffend, improving public safety.
• Cost-Effectiveness: RJ programs typically consume fewer resources than formal court proceedings, saving taxpayer funds.

Queensland’s Approach to Adult Restorative Justice:

In Queensland, RJ programs often serve as alternatives to formal legal action or as complementary post-sentencing measures. The emphasis is on accountability, repairing harm, and creating pathways for offenders to reintegrate into society constructively.

Conclusion:

Adult restorative justice in Queensland delivers significant benefits across personal, legal, and community dimensions. By fostering accountability, promoting healing, and facilitating rehabilitation, RJ not only aids victims and offenders but also contributes to a safer, more cohesive community.

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.

On February 12, 2025, NSW Police arrested seven people involved in a large-scale fraudulent scheme targeting sexual abuse compensation claims- known as “claim farming”. The arrests were made following an investigation by Strike Force Veritas, established in February 2024 to investigate fraudulent claims against the NSW Department of Communities and Justice and the NSW Department of Education.

What is claim farming?

Claim farming is an unethical practice where third parties, known as “claim farmers,” solicit individuals to file compensation claims, often without their consent. This practice typically involves:

1. Unsolicited contact: Claim farmers cold-call, email, or approach potential claimants directly, pressuring them to make compensation claims.
2. Exploitation of vulnerable individuals: They often target vulnerable groups, such as survivors of child abuse, former young offenders, or those involved in motor vehicle accidents.
3. Deceptive tactics: Claim farmers may use misleading methods, such as implying they represent government agencies or insurers, to gain trust.
4. Selling personal information: After obtaining an individual’s details, claim farmers sell this information to law firms or claims management service providers.
5. Financial incentives: Claim farmers typically receive a fee for each referral, which can be up to $2,200 per claim.

NSW police have charged the seven alleged offenders with dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception. This falls under Section 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which criminalises fraudulently obtaining property or financial advantage.

Furthermore, a number of the seven alleged offenders have also been charged with accessory before the fact to publish etc false misleading material to obtain advantage and incite to commit publish etc false misleading material to obtain advantage. These charges relate to aiding, abetting, or encouraging the publication of false or misleading information to gain an advantage, which is likely connected to submitting the fraudulent compensation claims. These offences are related to fraud and deception, and are serious offences under the Crimes Act.

The investigation, led by Strike Force Veritas, suggests a significant portion of the $1.3 billion worth of claims paid out might be fraudulent and that a third of the population of one NSW prison- have submitted fraudulent claims. The police also executed a search warrant at a law firm, indicating a potential investigation into professional misconduct or complicity.

The investigation is ongoing, and further charges may be laid as the inquiry progresses.

In response to the growing concern over claim farming, the NSW government introduced a draft bill on January 30, 2025, aimed at prohibiting these practices. The Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Bill 2025 proposes:

1. Banning unsolicited contact with potential claimants;
2. Prohibiting the buying or selling of claim referrals;
3. Imposing penalties of up to $55,000 for offenders;
4. Potential disciplinary action for lawyers involved in claim farming.

Our team at Brooke Winter Solicitors specialise in criminal law. Our role is to sit down with you and work out the strategy that will get you the best possible result in accordance with the law. If you have any questions about this article or any other topic of law, please call our team of experts on 1300 066 669.

H v AC [2024] NSWSC 40 was a challenging legal decision heard by the New South Wales Supreme Court in early 2024.

The case involved a 16-year-old girl, AC, who was diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma, a highly aggressive bone cancer, in July 2023.

AC initially underwent chemotherapy treatment, completing four of the first six treatment cycles. An MRI in September 2023 showed a significant reduction in tumour size. However, AC decided to discontinue treatment, believing she had been cured through a religious miracle.

The hospital sought a court order to continue AC’s treatment, concerned that she might not have the capacity to refuse consent due to insufficient understanding of the medical evidence.

The case raised complex issues regarding:

1. AC’s Gillick competence (capacity to make medical decisions);
2. The intersection of religious beliefs and medical treatment;
3. The court’s parens patriae jurisdiction in protecting minors.

What is Gillick competence?

Gillick competence is a legal concept originating from a 1985 case in England, Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. It determines whether a child under 16 years old has the maturity and understanding to consent to their own medical treatment without requiring parental permission or knowledge.

What is a court’s parens patriae jurisdiction?

A court’s parens patriae jurisdiction is a legal doctrine that empowers the court to act as a protective guardian for those who cannot care for themselves, particularly children and incapacitated individuals. This Latin term, meaning “parent of the nation,” grants the court authority to intervene and make decisions in the best interests of vulnerable individuals.

Outcome of H v AC [2024] NSWSC 40:

Justice Meek, after careful consideration, determined that AC was Gillick competent and had the ability to make decisions regarding her treatment. However, this was not the end of the matter. The court still had to consider whether it was in AC’s best interests to authorise the treatment against her wishes.

Ultimately, Justice Meek authorised and directed that the recommended treatment be administered to AC, despite her competence and religious beliefs. This decision was based on various factors, including the sanctity of life, medical evidence, AC’s religious beliefs, her autonomy, and right to bodily integrity.

The case highlights the complex interplay between a minor’s autonomy, religious beliefs, and the court’s duty to protect the best interests of children, even when they are deemed competent to make their own medical decisions.

Our team are experts in child protection 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 Australian government recently passed new hate crimes legislation in the Senate after agreeing to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for various offences. This move marks a significant shift in the Labor Party’s stance, as it previously opposed mandatory sentencing.

The new laws establish the following mandatory minimum sentences:

1. Six years imprisonment for terrorism offences;
2. Three years for financing terrorism;
3. One year for displaying hate symbols, including Nazi salutes.

These changes come in response to a recent surge in antisemitic incidents and attacks in Australia, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. The government has described these new laws as the “most stringent” ever implemented against hate crimes in the country.

The legislation also introduces new offences that criminalize threats of force or violence directed at specific groups based on attributes such as sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or ethnicity.

While the government argues that these measures send a strong message against hatred, the decision has faced criticism from various quarters. Some experts and politicians view mandatory sentencing as problematic, arguing that it undermines judicial independence and may lead to unjust outcomes. Critics also point out that this move contradicts the Labor Party’s national platform, which traditionally opposes mandatory sentencing.

The government has acknowledged these concerns and implemented a two-year review period to assess the efficacy of the new measures. Despite the controversy, the legislation passed with support from the Coalition, government, and some independents, while the Greens and other crossbenchers opposed it.

Our team at Brooke Winter Solicitors specialise in criminal law. Our role is to sit down with you and work out the strategy that will get you the best possible result in accordance with the law. If you have any questions about this article or any other topic of law, please call our team of experts on 1300 066 669.

– BailSafe –

What does this mean for our community?

The sudden closure of BailSafe Australia, a private firm offering GPS tracking services for accused offenders on bail in Victoria and New South Wales, has caused significant disruption to the bail monitoring system in these states. The company shut down without informing authorities, leaving accused criminals unmonitored and potentially compromising public safety.

In Victoria, eight alleged offenders were supposed to be monitored by BailSafe, while in New South Wales, more than 20 defendants on bail were found to be wearing BailSafe ankle monitors.

The closure has left these individuals without proper supervision, raising concerns about their compliance with bail conditions and the potential risk to the community. The impact of this sudden closure is multifaceted.

Firstly, with the monitoring system no longer functional, there is an increased risk that some accused offenders may violate their bail conditions or attempt to flee.

Secondly, police and justice departments in both states are now scrambling to identify and locate the affected individuals, potentially diverting resources from other critical areas.

The incident has prompted a reconsideration of the use of private companies for bail monitoring. Victoria’s Attorney-General has announced plans to end the practice of allowing private firms to provide these services.

For those granted bail on the BailSafe program, they may now face the possibility of having their bail revoked or modified, leading to potential re-incarceration or stricter conditions.

The closure of BailSafe has exposed significant vulnerabilities in the current bail monitoring system and highlighted the need for better oversight and regulation of private companies involved in criminal justice services. As authorities work to address the immediate concerns, this incident is likely to prompt a broader review of bail monitoring practices and the role of private firms in the justice 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.

In Queensland’s criminal justice system, the term “No Evidence to Offer” (NETO) refers to a decision by the prosecution (QLD Police) to discontinue a case against a defendant by choosing not to present evidence at the hearing or trial. When this occurs, the charges against the defendant are effectively dismissed, and the case does not proceed further.

“NETO” is a procedural step that allows prosecutors to formally discontinue a case. It signifies that the prosecution has decided not to pursue the matter for various reasons, which can include:

• Insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Key witnesses being unavailable or unwilling to testify.
• Evidentiary issues, such as evidence being ruled inadmissible.
• Public interest considerations, where continuing the prosecution may not serve justice.

When a prosecutor announces, “No Evidence to Offer,” the court will record that no evidence has been presented. Consequently, the charges are dismissed, and the defendant is discharged.

When NETO is Used:

Prosecutors may decide to offer no evidence at any stage of the proceedings, including:

• Before a Committal Hearing: If a review of the evidence indicates there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction.
• At Trial: If new information arises or evidence is deemed inadmissible, leaving the case untenable.
• During Pre-Trial Conferences: When a plea agreement is reached, and certain charges are dropped as part of the resolution.

Legal Framework and Implications

The authority to discontinue proceedings by offering no evidence is governed by the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). This discretion is exercised by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or police prosecutors in Magistrates Courts.

Recent Examples in Queensland

The use of NETO has been highlighted in several cases, particularly in complex matters where evidence falls short during pre-trial reviews. For example:

1. Domestic Violence Cases: Prosecutions are sometimes discontinued if complainants withdraw support for the case or if critical evidence is lacking.
2. Traffic Offenses: NETO is common in traffic matters where procedural errors, such as incorrect filing of charges, render the case unsustainable.
3. Criminal Case: Charges are usually withdrawn where submissions are sent by defence lawyers pointing out deficiencies in the case.

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.

In Queensland, when a person is found guilty of an offence, the court has the discretion to either record a conviction or not record a conviction against them. This decision can have long-term consequences, particularly concerning employment, travel, and professional licensing (such as a blue card). Understanding how courts exercise this discretion is crucial for anyone facing sentencing in Queensland.

Legal Framework: Sentencing Principles

The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) governs the court’s discretion in recording convictions. Specifically, Section 12 outlines the considerations a court must take into account when deciding whether to record a conviction.

The court must consider:

1. The Nature of the Offence – The seriousness of the offence plays a significant role in determining whether a conviction should be recorded. More serious offences are more likely to result in a recorded conviction.
2. The Offender’s Character and History – A person’s prior criminal history, or lack thereof, can influence whether a conviction is recorded. First-time offenders may have a better chance of avoiding a recorded conviction.
3. The Impact on the Offender’s Economic or Social Well-being – The court will consider whether recording a conviction would adversely affect the offender’s ability to gain employment, travel, or hold professional licenses.
4. The Interests of Justice – The court weighs the public interest in punishment and deterrence against the individual circumstances of the offender.

When a Conviction is Not Recorded:

A conviction is less likely to be recorded when:

• The offender has no prior criminal history.
• The offence is relatively minor (e.g., low-level drug possession, public nuisance, or some driving offences).
• Recording a conviction would disproportionately harm the offender’s future, such as affecting their ability to work in professions requiring a clear criminal history (e.g., law, healthcare, teaching).

In cases where the court does not record a conviction, the offender is still found guilty, and the offence can be taken into account in future sentencing, but it will not appear on a standard police clearance certificate. If a conviction is recorded, it may appear on criminal history checks, which can affect employment, visa applications, and travel restrictions.

A well-prepared submission can influence the court’s decision on whether to record a conviction.

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.