As of 19 February 2024, Todd Fuller KC (Kings Counsel) has been appointed Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions.

Todd Fuller was called to the Bar in 1989 and has since held various positions within the legal system. He served as a Crown prosecutor the same year and has been a full-time Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions since 2016.

Fuller’s experience encompasses all aspects of the criminal justice system across different jurisdictional levels. He has appeared in courts throughout Queensland, including significant trials in the Supreme Court and complex matters before the Court of Appeal.

Outside of his legal practice, Fuller is actively engaged in the legal community. He is a member of the Bar Association of Queensland and serves on several committees related to legal education and university relations. Additionally, he has been a long-term member of the Griffith Law School visiting committee.

Our team 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. 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 a recent ruling, a Supreme Court Justice was highly critical of Cairns’s police officers for conducting an unlawful vehicle search and emphasised that our society is not a police state.

Senior Constable AG stopped Neale Graham Casemore in Edmonton in June 2022, purportedly due to someone linked to the vehicle being unlicensed. However, it was revealed that the officer had previously observed the vehicle parked at a residence where drugs had been found in 2017 and 2020.

During the subsequent search of the vehicle, illicit substances, cash, and paraphernalia were discovered. However, Justice Henry concluded that Senior Constable AG lacked the reasonable suspicion required for a lawful search under section 31(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

The Crown submitted six facts as grounds for a reasonable suspicion, of which Justice Henry stated were “vague”:

1. the time of night (1am);
2. the nervous state of Mr Casemore;
3. that the vehicle’s registered owner had “previous drug intelligence and occurrences”;
4. that Mr Casemore had “previous drug intelligence and occurrences”;
5. that the vehicle had been seen parked at a home where dangerous drugs had been located in the past; and
6. that the driver of another vehicle which had left the property had been charged with drug trafficking.

Justice Henry highlighted the absence of concrete evidence and questioned the validity of the suspicion, suggesting it was more of a gamble based on past occurrences rather than genuine grounds.

Justice Henry noted that the late-night hour and Casemore’s nervousness were insufficient grounds for suspicion, given plausible alternative explanations. He also pointed out the absence of drug testing for Casemore, further undermining the validity of the suspicion.

While acknowledging the seriousness of drug-related offenses, Justice Henry expressed concern over the frequency of unlawful searches. He stressed the importance of law enforcement agencies adhering to legal standards to protect citizens’ rights, even in the pursuit of justice. Ultimately, he ordered the exclusion of the unlawfully obtained evidence to deter future breaches of privacy and uphold legal integrity.

This ruling provides for the delicate balance between law enforcement’s duty to uphold the law and the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Upholding legal standards is crucial to maintaining public trust and confidence in the legal system. Justice Henry’s decision serves as a reminder that law enforcement agencies must operate within the confines of the law, even in pursuit of justice, to safeguard civil liberties.

Our team are experts in criminal and traffic 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.

Troy Cridland, a former NSW Police officer, has been condemned by Judge Jennifer English for what her Honour described as “grossly and egregiously abusing the trust placed in him as a police officer.” The ruling came as Cridland was found guilty of engaging in sexual activities with an underage girl while serving in the police force.

In a landmark decision at the Campbelltown District Court, Judge English delivered a 15-year jail term to Cridland. The conviction came from his repeated sexual encounters with the minor over several months, alongside attempts to exploit her for child abuse material. Additionally, he was found guilty of obstructing justice by coercing the victim’s mother into providing false information to authorities.

The victim, whose identity remains protected under legal provisions, was below 16 years old at the time of the offenses, while Cridland was 28.

In her sentencing remarks, Judge English condemned Cridland’s actions as “predatory,” emphasising how he manipulated both the victim and her mother, leveraging his authority as a police officer. Despite Cridland’s claim that he believed the girl was of legal age and had met her through Tinder, the jury dismissed this defense, affirming the Crown’s argument that he was fully aware of her underage status.

Moreover, Judge English criticized Cridland’s lack of remorse, highlighting discrepancies between his personal assertions and the findings of a report from NSW Community Corrections. The report depicted Cridland as maintaining a self-centred attitude, downplaying his offenses and failing to acknowledge the power dynamic he wielded over the victim.

The trial last for 4 weeks in Lismore District Court, with the jury delivering their verdict after just two hours.

Cridland’s sentence includes a non-parole period of nine years and nine months, with eligibility for release in 2033 after factoring in time served. Cridland is continuing his studies toward a university degree while incarcerated.

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 woman was found dead in the early hours of February 15th 2024, on her property located between Jimboomba and Beaudesert. Police arrived at the property, where they found the body of the deceased. Police were called to the property after receiving a 000-phone call. The husband of the victim Amarjit Sardar is alleged to have been the one to call police to report the death of his wife.

Mr Sardar has been accused of murdering his wife and was seen in court on the 16th of Feb after being taken to the Beenleigh watchhouse in the evening of the 15th of Feb.

Police are concerned that there was tampering with evidence on Mr Sardar’s behalf. Police predict that forensic examiners will be at the scene for the next several days collecting evidence. This investigation includes a dive squad and SES volunteers.

On the first occasion where Mr Sardar was seen in court, police highlighted that pathology reports and the finalization of all evidence will take at least three months. Mr Sardar will be returning to court in June to have this matter heard again, where it will possibly proceed further to a trial if no agreement has been reached prior. Until then he will stay behind bars.

The children of the couple were not at home at the time of the death and are being supported by loved ones during this time.

Murder is a charge in Queensland which is outlined in the Criminal Code.  The punishment for murder is outlined in section 305 which states “Any person who commits the crime of Murder is liable for imprisonment for life.”  

The charge of murder is strictly indictable which means that it cannot be ultimately dealt with by any other than the Supreme Court.  When a person is charged with Murder they will initially appear before a Magistrate until the matter is committed to the Supreme Court.

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 recent stabbing death of 70-year-old Vyleen White in Queensland has reignited the debate surrounding youth bail laws, as the accused 16-year-old had been on bail for armed robbery at the time of the heinous crime. The shocking incident, which unfolded in front of Ms. White’s 6-year-old granddaughter, has prompted calls for stronger measures to address youth crime and ensure public safety.

Queensland Deputy Opposition Leader Jarrod Bleijie has criticized the state government’s approach to youth crime, labelling it as weak and holding it responsible for the tragic outcome. The accused teenager, charged last year with robbery offences, was reportedly released on bail despite police opposition. This revelation has sparked concerns about the efficacy of existing bail laws and whether they adequately protect the community.

Bleijie asserts that the state government’s youth justice policies, implemented since their rise to power in 2015, have weakened the legal framework designed to handle juvenile offenders. He argues that putting the rights of offenders before the rights of victims has led to a slap-on-the-wrist approach, allowing young offenders to evade serious consequences for their actions.

The urgency to reassess Queensland’s Youth Justice Act is now a focal point, with calls to rewrite the entire legislation. Bleijie emphasizes the need for a more robust legal framework that prioritizes public safety and ensures that young offenders face appropriate consequences for their actions. He criticizes the current system, suggesting that weak laws contribute to the rising tide of youth crime across the state.

The tragic incident has prompted a broader discussion about the prevalence of youth crime in Queensland, extending beyond specific regions. Bleijie argues that it is a crisis impacting communities across the state, requiring comprehensive and immediate attention.

While early intervention programs have been touted as a solution, Bleijie questions their effectiveness, challenging the government’s claim of investing billions of dollars into such initiatives. The need for a gold standard in early intervention programs is evident, as weak programs may not be deterring young individuals from a path of criminality.

One contentious issue raised by Bleijie is the concept of detention as a last resort. He argues that the current legal requirement for judges and magistrates to explore alternative options for young offenders before resorting to detention may contribute to a lenient approach that fails to deter repeat offenders.

The call for a rewrite of the Youth Justice Act is not just a political stance; it’s a plea for the safety and well-being of Queensland communities. The tragic death of Vyleen White has become a rallying point for those advocating a re-evaluation of youth bail laws and a stronger stance on youth crime. As Queenslanders grapple with the shock of this abhorrent crime, the pressing question remains: Can the existing legal framework adequately protect the community, or is it time for a comprehensive reassessment and restructuring of youth bail laws 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.

In a legal saga that reads like a gripping crime novel, Tony Mokbel, a notorious drug kingpin, has laid bare shocking revelations about the role played by his own legal counsel, Nicola Gobbo, also known as Lawyer X. As Mokbel seeks to overturn his drug trafficking conviction, the courtroom drama unfolds, exposing a web of trust, betrayal, and a justice system on trial. 

Betrayal by Lawyer X:

Mokbel’s startling claim that Lawyer X advised him to flee the country to evade murder charges has sent shockwaves through the legal community. As Mokbel recalls a pivotal 2006 conversation where Gobbo allegedly warned him of impending murder charges. Which raises questions about the fine line between legal representation and manipulation. 

The staunch advocate turned informant:

Gobbo, initially Mokbel’s staunchest advocate, later morphed into a police informant, raising profound questions about the ethics of legal representation and the lengths to which an attorney can go in the pursuit of justice. 

The extradition chess game:

Mokbel’s extradition from Greece becomes a focal point in his appeal strategy. His claim that Gobbo assisted in his extradition case while simultaneously passing on information about his legal strategy to the police adds layers of deception. The courtroom is left to grapple with whether Gobbo’s actions were driven by a genuine concern for justice or a more intricate game with high-stake consequences. 

Corruption allegations and a quest for proof:

Amid Mokbel’s accusations of corruption within the Victoria Police, his desire to gather evidence of police misconduct adds another dimension to the case. As he contends that his life was in danger and sought to prove that he couldn’t receive a fair trial in Australia, the courtroom becomes a battleground for the broader issue of systemic corruption within law enforcement. 

The warning signs and trust eroded:

Mokbel’s admission that there were rumours about Gobbo being a “dog” (police informant) but his unwavering trust in her raise’s questions about the dynamics of solicitor-client relationships. The court hears how even warnings from fellow inmate Carl Williams were dismissed in the face of Mokbel’s trust in Gobbo’s loyalty. 

Legal wrangling and health challenges:

The courtroom proceedings are not without their share of challenges, from technical legal disputes to computer difficulties and health issues faced by Mokbel. The legal dance between prosecution and defence is underscored by the gravity of the allegations and potential implications for the justice system. 

As Tony Mokbel lays bare the intricacies of his relationship with Lawyer X, the courtroom becomes a theatre where trust is shattered, and the foundations of justice are tested. The case raises profound questions about the boundaries of legal representation, the role of informants, and the extent to which a quest for justice can sometimes lead down a treacherous path. The legal community and the public at large are left to grapple with the consequences of a justice system entangled in its own complexities. 

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 a landmark move, the Albanese government has introduced a bill that prohibits the admissibility of evidence related to a rape complainant’s sexual reputation in criminal federal proceedings. Spearheaded by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, this bill marks a significant step forward in safeguarding the rights and dignity of sexual assault complainants within the Commonwealth criminal justice system.

Under the provisions of the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024, evidence regarding a complainant’s sexual reputation will no longer be admissible in court. This crucial reform aims to mitigate the traumatisation experienced by complainants and witnesses during legal proceedings, recognising the profound impact such evidence can have on individuals who have already endured the trauma of sexual assault.

The decision to render evidence of sexual reputation inadmissible is embedded in the recognition that such evidence is often tangential to the actual events or circumstances of the case at hand. The bill’s explanatory memorandum underscores the imperativeness of prioritizing the interests of justice, emphasizing that evidence must be directly relevant to the facts under consideration to warrant its admissibility.

Furthermore, the bill empowers courts to carefully evaluate the relevance and probative value of any evidence pertaining to a witness or complainant’s sexual experience. Leave to explore such evidence will only be granted if it is deemed substantially relevant to the proceedings and if it serves the interests of justice, particularly with regard to assessing the credibility of vulnerable adult complainants.

Beyond addressing evidentiary concerns, the bill also extends additional protections to vulnerable individuals involved in criminal proceedings. Courts are granted the authority to order evidence recording hearings, allowing for the sensitive documentation of testimonies involving vulnerable persons. This measure seeks to ensure that the voices of complainants and witnesses are accurately preserved and can be presented as evidence in future proceedings.

Moreover, the bill recognizes the importance of empowering complainants and witnesses to share their experiences with the public, should they choose to do so. By granting individuals the right to engage with media organizations, the legislation amplifies the voices of survivors and contributes to greater transparency surrounding sexual assault cases.

The government’s commitment to addressing sexual violence extends beyond legislative reforms. The recent announcement of a comprehensive review by the Australian Law Reform Commission underscores the nation’s dedication to enhancing the criminal justice system’s response to sexual assault. This review, informed by insights from prominent advocates such as Grace Tame, will explore frameworks related to evidence, court processes, jury directions, and laws pertaining to consent.

Furthermore, the inquiry will examine the necessity of additional training for judges, lawyers, and law enforcement personnel to facilitate trauma-informed and culturally sensitive justice responses. By prioritizing survivor-centered approaches and engaging in meaningful dialogue with key stakeholders, the government aims to foster a legal system that is more responsive to the needs and experiences of sexual assault survivors.

As Australia takes proactive steps to address sexual violence and support survivors, the passage of this bill represents a crucial milestone in the ongoing quest for justice and accountability by prioritizing the rights and well-being of survivors, the nation reaffirms its commitment to creating a safer and more equitable society for all.

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.

Chief Justice Andrew Bell, the highest-ranking Judge in NSW, has stated that the caseloads of Magistrates throughout NSW are “unsustainable”. Some local courts caseloads have ballooned to over 140 matters per day, placing immense pressure and stress on probation officers, parole boards, and judges alike.

“Our Judges and Magistrates can only be stretched so far. And overstretched they are, both in terms of numbers and resourcing” he  said, “The pool of their undoubted goodwill and physical and emotional capacity is not infinitely deep.” … “The nature of an essential service is that society could not function without it. So, it is with the courts.”

 “The judiciary serves as an essential pillar of society. Without functioning courts, the fabric of our community would fray.”

Chief Justice Bell made the comments in a speech to the NSW Law Society’s annual Opening of the Law Term dinner in Sydney on Wednesday night.

 Solution is More Magistrates

Brett McGrath, president of the NSW Law Society, emphasised Justice Bell’s remarks underscored the necessity for increased numbers of judicial officers and support personnel advocating for a remedy:

“The answer lies in bolstering the ranks of Magistrates.”

He further explained,

“Insufficient funding within the justice system imposes unjust strains on all involved. Courts unable to expedite trials within a reasonable timeframe not only render proceedings unfair to defendants but also inflict undue hardship on victims of crime and their families.” … “That means additional magistrates and judges to reduce backlogs in our system”.

The NSW government made fundamental changes to recruit and retain people that are needed to work in the court system, but the change won’t happen overnight.

 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 teenage boy has fallen prey to a Snapchat “extortion” plot causing him to attempt to take his own life. The 17 year old crossed into oncoming traffic at more than 100km/h, colliding head on into a car killing a 63 year old female driver. The 17-year old only sustained minor injuries.

The man now aged 19, was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in Brisbane Supreme Court last Wednesday, after pleading guilty to manslaughter. He will now spend 18 months in an adult prison before being released.

The court heard the tragedy unfolded in August 2022 when the then teenager fell victim to a Snapchat scammer who enticed him to send explicit photos to a person claiming to be a young woman. The scammer then began threatening the teen to send money or he would make the images public.

Justice Peter Davis stated the boy transferred $500 then a further $200, however the scammer released the photos to a friend of the boy anyway. The teenager pleaded with the scammer to stop and wrote a final note to his tormentor saying, “Hope you sleep better knowing you killed me”.

He further went on to say, “I accept that the explanation for your offending is that you panicked when threatened by Amber Rose and the threat of public disclosure of the photographs so impacted you that you attempted to suicide by causing a motor vehicle accident in which you hoped to die”. However, a psychological report stated that he did not recall feeling suicidal but was experiencing severe stress.

The court heard that the teen had no criminal history or traffic history and was at a low risk of reoffending.  He will spend 50% of the 3 year sentence with a conviction recorded, and a disqualification from driving for 18 months.

Our team specialise in criminal and traffic 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.