Justice Tamara Jago has ruled that the key evidence obtained by Tasmana police for drug trafficking matters was inadmissible therefore crippling the Crown case. Police opened a parcel sent to the address in the north-west city of Devonport containing methylamphetamine after suspicious packages were detected by Australia Post employees.

Tasmania Police were tipped off by Australia Post that there was a suspicious package that they believed was connected to illegal activity. Justice Jago called it a “reckless” breach of the law. Furthermore, Justice Jago went on to say “Even though a suspicion is less than a belief, a reasonable suspicion nevertheless requires some supporting material”.

Justice Jago noted that the police had other options, such as a drug detection dog however opened the package anyway. Subsequently, three further packages which contained methamphetamines were handed over to the police and then returned to Australia Post to be delivered.

Police executed a warrant at the address and charged three persons with trafficking a controlled substance. Justice Jago said “had the disclosures not been made to Tasmania Police by the Australia Post employees, the parcels would never have come into the possession of Tasmania Police and the discovery of methylamphetamine within the parcels would not have eventuated”.

Justice Jago not only criticised Tasmania Police, but also Australia Post employees for breaching laws that were designed to protect rights and privacy of citizens. The Crown case will most likely fail without the evidence from the packages.

Later, Police Minister Felix Ellis made comments that Tasmania Police were reviewing their processes and that “the community expects that Tasmania Police collect evidence in accordance with the rules”.

Our team specialise in criminal defence. 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 Thursday, 27 October 2022, after a 12-day trial and 5 days of deliberations, the jury panel in the rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann were discharged. Chief Justice Lucy McCallum had no choice but to discharge the jury after it was discovered that a jury member had brought in outside evidence to the deliberation room. This is prohibited under the Juries Act 1967, and the jury had been warned at least 17 times by Her Honour Chief Justice McCallum regarding this behaviour.

After the jury was discharged, Her Honour Chief Justice McCallum relisted the matter for trial, and warned the complainant and accused about making comments in the media that may impact the accused right to a fair trial. Her Honour further warned that any such comments could be considered contempt of court under the ACT Criminal Code.

Both the accused and Ms Higgins were present in Court when the Chief Justice gave this warning.

The accused through his legal representative declined the opportunity to address the media after these warnings, on the basis it would be both “inappropriate and irresponsible” given Her Honours warnings.

Ms Higgins however, addressed the media, delivering what the accused lawyers say was a pre-prepared speech, setting out the injustices she felt throughout the trial proceedings.

The accused lawyers sought urgent legal advice in relation to Ms Higgins speech and referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.

The investigation will look into whether Ms Higgins comments amount to the criminal offence of contempt of court.

The maximum penalty for contempt of court in Queensland is 1 year imprisonment or a fine to the value of 84 penalty units.

Our team specialize in criminal defence. 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 September 2021, the Queensland Government introduced tough new parole laws for prisoners convicted of atrocious crimes who received sentences of life imprisonment for their crimes. The laws are intended to target people who are convicted of killing children and those who are convicted of multiple murders. 

The legislation which is included within the Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 came following the application for parole by Barrie Watts. The community was outraged that Mr Watts may be released back into the community and called for the Government to do something to keep him behind bars. The laws were introduced to ensure that those who commit atrocious crimes have no guaranteed right to parole and in fact may never be afforded the opportunity to apply for parole.

Mr Watts is now 68 years old and has spent thirty-five (35) years in prison after receiving a life sentence for his crimes. He was convicted of the abduction, rape and murder on a 12-year old girl, Sian Kingi. The young girl was from the Sunshine Coast and the crime was committed in November 1987.

The Parole Board Queensland had granted Mr Watts a parole hearing prior to the laws being enacted, however following the introduction of the new laws this was rejected. 

The Parole Board Queensland President now has the sole responsibility of determining whether convicted child killers and those who have committed multiple murders should receive a parole ban of up to ten (10) years. This ensures that the President of the Parole Board can step in where atrocious crimes were committed and where it remains unsafe to release the prisoner back into the community.

In Mr Watts circumstances, given the extent of his crimes he was deemed an unacceptable risk to the community if he were to be released.

Two convicted child killers have been the first to have their parole bans extended by the Parole Board Queensland President Michael Byrne KC. 

Andrew Brownsey was the first to receive a parole ban for a period of eight (8) years in June 2022. He is serving a life sentence after being convicted of the murder of a 15-year-old boy in Strathpine in May 1988. 

Alan Craig received a five (5) year ban, he is serving life imprisonment after being convicted of the murder of his two-year-old nephew in 2006. 

Both Mr Craig and Mr Brownsey were deemed by Mr Byrne to be an unacceptable risk to the community if they were to be released on parole. Mr Byrne said, “ I have made this declaration because of the nature, seriousness and circumstances of the offence for which the prisoner was sentenced to life imprisonment; of the risk the prisoner may pose to the public if the prisoner is granted parole; and of the likely effect that the prisoner’s release on parole may have on … a victim.”

After comprehensive considerations the two men were issued their parole bans, which can be further extended in the future if they are still deemed an unacceptable risk in future. 

Our team specialize in criminal defence. 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.

Former swimming coach, Kyle Daniels has been acquitted by the Jury in the New South Wales District Court. Mr Daniels pleaded not guilty to 21 charges, 10 charges of a sexual nature.

Kyle Daniels, is twenty-four years old and was charged with inappropriate sexual contact with 9 young female students whilst working as a part time swim instructor in 2018 and 2019. The jury acquitted Mr Daniels of 9 charges including 5 of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of ten. Four of the verdicts were majority decisions which means all jury members but one agreeing. On Monday 24 October 2022 Mr Daniels was acquitted of one further charge of sexually touching a child under the age of ten and handed the Judge a note that indicated “no prospect of resolution” on the remaining charges.

Judge Kara Shead urged the jury to continue deliberating and participate in objective discussions. Judge Shead said “I understand there will be a level of frustration in the jury room”. Shortly after a further note was handed to the Judge by the jury that advised they remained divided and was discharged. The outstanding charges included five counts of indecent assault and six counts of sexual touching. The Judge indicated that the trial would conclude without verdicts in relation to the outstanding charges and that such circumstances would ordinarily result in a re-Trial but will be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Daniels previously faced Trial in 2020 on 26 charges whereby he was acquitted of five but the jury were unable to come to a decision on the remaining charges.

Being acquitted is the verdict of not guilty, there are also rules under Australian law that you cannot be brought into jeopardy for the same offence more than once which is called double jeopardy. It is the principal of autrefois acquit which roughly translates to “formerly acquitted”, it precludes a prosecuting authority from bringing a charge relating to an alleged offence that a person has already been acquitted on. There are some exceptions to double jeopardy through the Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act, which was introduced in 2007.

Our team specialise in criminal defence. 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.

Much like the road rules for motor vehicle uses, the traffic laws which apply across local jurisdictions of Australia extend to those who utilise bicycles on the road. Under all legislation materials covering motor vehicles, a bicycle is classed as a vehicle which must obey the same rules that other vehicles are legally bound by. This includes stopping at the relevant signals, giving way and stopping as indicated by road signs and provide an indication through hand signals when they are changing direction. These rules provide the same legislative punishments as would apply to a motor vehicle users.  

However, while all road rules apply to bicycle users, there are some specific rules that strictly apply to those riding bicycles. Such rules include that the rider of a bicycle must avoid being a traffic hazard such as riding in the path of a driver or pedestrian. Further rules are also in place for bicyclists to ensure they remain as safe as possible while on the road, with laws such as the requirement to wear a safety helmet while riding their vehicle.  

Ever since the lockdowns throughout the pandemic period of the past four years, many people have taken up the act of cycling and as such it is imperative that the rules put in place are followed. Since this spike of road users, the increase and necessities regarding safety measures have also become apparent. The increase in fatalities and head injuries is evident especially in Sydney with a 78% increase in hospital admittance due to these injuries being recognisable. It is therefore imperative that all users of the road whether they are using motor vehicles or bicycles exercise caution to all road users to ensure safety for all.  

Our team specialise in criminal defence. 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.

Upon being charged with an offence, you may be required to attend court at a later date, or otherwise be kept in custody until a court date is next available. 

Every individual, independent of their specific circumstances, has a right to apply for bail. 

Applications for bail are considered in various court jurisdictions, including in the Supreme, District and Magistrates Courts. In higher jurisdictions, depending on the stage of proceedings, bail applications often also require an affidavit of justification, which is a formal document that includes justifications as to why bail should be awarded. 

In deciding whether you are awarded bail, the court will consider relevant factors, including whether it is justifiable to remand you based on your likelihood of reoffending.  The court will also consider whether you are a danger to the community, whether you are likely to commit a further serious offence, and whether you will attend the court on the next occasion. The court also considers where you live, whether you are employed, your previous criminal convictions, as well as other relevant factors. 

If you are granted bail, you will be allowed to go freely until you are next required before the court, subject to conditions. Such conditions could include regularly reporting to police, not having criminal connections, providing a surety, or other various conditions. 

If your bail application was previously refused, you may reapply for bail if you are able to explain that you have had a change in circumstances. 

If you are found to have breached your bail, it can be revoked, or otherwise you can be charged with the offence of breach of bail. In the circumstance where you are charged, you can be arrested without a warrant and later brought before the court. 

Our team specialise in criminal defence. 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.