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.

New South Wales has seen an increase in hate crime investigations following high-profile incidents targeting synagogues in Sydney. Alleged acts include arson attempts and anti-Semitic graffiti at Newtown Synagogue, as well as swastika vandalism at Southern Sydney Synagogue in Allawah. These events have brought hate crime allegations into the spotlight. Hate crimes can happen anywhere across Australia such as Southport, Rockhampton, Toowoomba, Hobart.

Government Response to Anti-Semitic Incidents
NSW Premier Chris Minns has condemned these hate crimes and announced plans to review vilification and hate crime laws. The government’s zero-tolerance policy and proposed stricter penalties emphasise the serious nature of such offenses, making it crucial for those accused to understand the law.

Understanding Hate Crime Allegations

Hate crime allegations carry severe social and legal implications. In these recent cases, police are utilising extensive resources, including counter-terrorism and hate crime units, to identify suspects. Allegations of arson and vilification may result in criminal charges with significant penalties if proven in court.

Legal Consequences of Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are treated with particular severity due to their targeting of specific groups based on race, religion, ethnicity, or other protected attributes. Convictions for these offenses can result in:

• Significant Penalties: Depending on the charges, penalties may include lengthy prison sentences, heavy fines, or both.
• Criminal Records: A conviction for a hate crime can affect future employment opportunities, travel, and professional licensing.
• Harsher Sentencing: Courts may impose aggravated sentences for hate crimes to reflect the additional harm caused to the community and the targeted group.
• Civil Liability: Victims of hate crimes may pursue civil actions for damages, adding another layer of legal and financial consequences for the accused.

Given the severe consequences, it is vital for defendants to seek immediate legal advice if they are accused of any hate crimes.

Protecting Rights and Presumption of Innocence

In high-profile cases like these, public opinion can quickly shift against accused individuals. At our firm, we believe in upholding the presumption of innocence and ensuring that every client receives a fair trial. We work to safeguard our clients’ rights while navigating the complexities of public and legal scrutiny.

Our team at Brooke Winter Solicitors appear daily in criminal courts across Australia. 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.

The phrase “adult crime, adult time” refers to a policy that advocates for treating juvenile offenders who commit serious crimes as adults in the criminal justice system within Queensland.

However, in the case of the 13-year-old boy charged with attempted murder of a Coles worker recently- this policy appears to have failed or fallen short of its intended purpose.

The “adult crime, adult time” policy does not apply to the 13-year-old boy. The charge of attempted murder is not included in the Making Queensland Safer Act 2024 as one of the 13 serious offences of which the “adult crime, adult time” policy applies.

The Queensland justice system has specific guidelines for determining whether a minor should be tried as an adult.

Children under 10 cannot be held criminally responsible at all. For children aged 10-13, there is a presumption of “doli incapax“- meaning they’re presumed not criminally responsible unless proven otherwise.

For children aged 10-13, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child understood that their actions were seriously wrong. This involves gathering evidence from parents, teachers, or others who know the child.

Generally, if the offender was under 18 when the crime was committed, they’re dealt with in the youth justice system, even if they’ve turned 18 by the time of charging or sentencing.

The Queensland system generally aims to keep minors within the youth justice system, focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment, even for serious offences committed by older teen.

Our team at Brooke Winter Solicitors appear daily in criminal courts across Australia. 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.

Queensland to Establish Public Child Sex Offender Registry: Introducing Daniel’s Law

Queensland is set to establish a public child sex offender registry in 2025 under new legislation known as Daniel’s Law. Named in honour of Daniel Morcombe, who was tragically abducted and murdered in 2003 by a serial child sex offender, the law aims to provide parents and guardians with tools to proactively safeguard their children from potential harm.

The Purpose of Daniel’s Law

The proposed legislation will create a three-tier system enabling Queenslanders to access information about individuals with histories of child sexual offences. Acting Premier Jarrod Bleijie emphasised the importance of consulting key stakeholders, including law enforcement and other experts, to ensure the law effectively protects children.

How the Registry Will Work

The proposed three-tier system is modelled on Western Australia’s successful registry, introduced in 2012, and includes the following components:

1. Public Website: A publicly accessible platform displaying photographs and personal details of offenders;
2. Identified Offender Access: Individuals can request a photograph of a registered offender identified in their area.
3. Parental Inquiry: Parents and guardians may directly inquire about a person of concern, such as someone interacting with their child in a school, community, or sporting environment.

This approach aims to strike a balance between transparency and privacy, ensuring access to critical information while implementing safeguards to prevent misuse.

Conclusion

Daniel’s Law represents a significant step forward in child protection legislation in Queensland. By providing a robust and accessible framework for identifying potential risks, this initiative seeks to empower parents and communities to make informed decisions and safeguard their children’s well-being.

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.

Affidavits are an essential tool for defendants in both criminal and civil cases. In Queensland, these sworn statements of fact can play a pivotal role in securing favourable outcomes, whether defending against charges, seeking bail, disputing a domestic violence protection order, or challenging a traffic matter. Here’s why it’s crucial for defendants to have carefully drafted affidavits.

1. Provides a Clear Defense Narrative

• An affidavit allows a defendant to present their version of events in a structured, coherent, and legally sound manner. For criminal defendants (rare), it may provide evidence of an alibi, challenge the prosecution’s version of events, or explain mitigating circumstances. In civil cases, where Affidavits are almost always relied on, such as in domestic violence cases, affidavits can help counter false or exaggerated claims, providing a direct statement of the defendant’s position.
• Domestic Violence examples:
• “I have never made any threats or acted violently toward [Complainant]. The allegations made are false, and I have provided text messages as evidence.”
• “The allegations made by [Complainant] are unfounded. On the evening in question, I was with family at a gathering, which is confirmed by the attached photographs.”

2. Strengthens Bail Applications

• For defendants facing criminal charges, affidavits can be vital in bail applications. A well-drafted affidavit can show the defendant’s willingness to comply with bail conditions, their ties to the community, or the absence of any flight risk. This can significantly improve the chances of being granted bail.
• Example for Bail: “I have lived in Queensland for the last 10 years, and my employer is willing to support my bail conditions with a letter confirming my employment status.”

3. Legal Weight and Credibility

• An affidavit is a sworn statement under oath, meaning it holds legal weight. Any false information provided in an affidavit can result in perjury charges, making it crucial for defendants to ensure the accuracy of their statements. A well-prepared and truthful affidavit is essential for upholding the credibility of the defendant’s case.

4. Saves Court Time and Resources

• Affidavits allow for the presentation of key facts and evidence without requiring lengthy oral testimony. This can expedite proceedings, making it easier for the court to evaluate the case and ultimately reach a fair decision. For defendants, this can mean quicker resolution and less exposure to prolonged legal processes.

A lawyer can help you present your evidence in the most compelling way. They know how to reference supporting documents (like emails, photos, or text messages) and how to organise the chronology to strengthen your case. Without a lawyer’s guidance, you might miss key pieces of evidence or fail to present them effectively.

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.