The Queensland government recently released its new Queensland Digital Licence app. This now means that you can have your identification on your phone through the app and do not need to carry a physical ID. If you prefer the real thing, however, Queensland will continue to distribute physical identification as usual.

Do I have to use the digital ID in QLD?

No, the Queensland government has made it clear that it is not a requirement to use the digital licence. The app is simply there for those who wish to use it.

Is the digital ID accepted throughout Australia and overseas?

When traveling it is best to still bring your physical ID. Not all venues that require identification will accept the digital licence. So, it is best to be prepared with your physical card. This is similar when travelling overseas.We recommend that you check local authority websites if you are unsure about using your digital identification outside of Queensland.

Who can use the digital licence?

To be eligible for the Digital Licence app, you must have one or more of the following:

• A driver’s licence of any class;
• A marine licence or photo identification card/Adult Proof of age card.

You will also need to have a smart phone that is compatible with the app. Currently there is also a restriction on eligibility if you only have one name. The Queensland Government is working on allowing individuals with only one name to benefit from the app.

Is my privacy protected if I use the app?

The Queensland Government has made it clear that the privacy of everyone’s personal information is a top priority for them. Through the development of the app it has undergone thorough cybersecurity testing and testing will continue as the app runs throughout Queensland. None of your personal information is ever shared, unless you give permission. No person verifying your identity ever needs to touch your device, they can look at your screen or scan a QR code to do so. To ensure the app meets privacy standards, the government completed a privacy impact assessment which can be found on the Queensland Government website.

Is this form of identification legal?

In 2020 legislation was passed regarding digital authorities such as the digital licence as well as concepts of digital evidence of age and digital evidence of identity. Therefore, under Queensland legislation a digital licence can be used legally.

Our team specialize 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.

Pill testing at music festivals and events has become a contentious issue in Australia, with passionate arguments on both sides of the debate. Proponents argue it’s a vital harm reduction measure, while opponents claim it sends the wrong message about drug use.

Those in favour:

Those in favour of pill testing contend that it can save lives by allowing drug users to make more informed decisions. Supporters point to evidence from countries like the Netherlands, where pill testing has been implemented for decades, showing it can reduce overdoses and relieves the burden on the medical system.

Experts argue that young people will use drugs regardless of their legal status, so providing them with accurate information about the contents and potency of substances is crucial for harm reduction.

Public health experts have emphasised that pill testing not only identifies dangerous adulterants but also provides an opportunity to educate users about safer drug practices.

Advocates note that pill testing can improve the overall quality of drugs in circulation by putting pressure on manufacturers to avoid harmful additives.

Those in favour also argue that pill testing creates a valuable opportunity for health professionals to engage with drug users and potentially guide them towards support services.

Evidence suggests that “just say no” approach is ineffective and that pragmatic harm reduction strategies are necessary.

Those against:

On the other hand, opponents of pill testing, including some politicians and law enforcement officials, argue that it sends a contradictory message about illegal drug use. Opponents’ express concerns that pill testing could give users a false sense of security and potentially encourage more drug use.

Critics also point to technical limitations of on-site testing methods, arguing they may not detect all harmful substances or provide a comprehensive analysis of a drug’s contents.

Some worry that inaccurate results could lead to tragic consequences if users mistakenly believe their drugs are safe. Who becomes liable if the testing comes back with a clean but the user then experiences adverse consequences?

There are also legal and ethical concerns raised by opponents. It is argued that facilitating the testing of illegal substances could be seen as tacitly condoning their use and may conflict with existing drug laws.

The debate:

The debate often reflects broader philosophical differences between harm reduction and zero tolerance approaches to drug policy. Harm reduction advocates view complete drug elimination as unrealistic and potentially harmful, while zero tolerance proponents believe any measures that appear to enable drug use are counterproductive.

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 are charged with a drug offence, we recommend you obtain legal advice immediately.

If you have any questions about this article or any other topic of law, please call our team of experts on 1300 066 669.

David Crisafulli, the newly elected Premier of Queensland, has outlined a 100-day plan that includes significant measures to address youth crime.

The key elements of Crisafulli’s youth crime plan include:

1. Drafting and passing the “Making Queensland Safer” bill by the end of the year.
2. Implementing an “adult crime, adult time” approach, which suggests harsher penalties for young offenders.
3. Beginning tenders for the Regional Reset program to divert youth from crime.
4. Initiating tenders for the Staying on Track program to rehabilitate youth offenders.
5. Meeting with the Police Commissioner to outline additional support needed to address the youth crime crisis.

Crisafulli has emphasised the urgency of addressing youth crime. However, experts are sceptical about the effectiveness of this approach for several reasons:

1. The 100-day timeframe is considered too short to implement meaningful, long-term solutions to complex social issues like youth crime.
2. The “adult crime, adult time” policy has been criticized by criminologists and social workers as potentially counterproductive, as it may not address the root causes of youth crime.
3. Experts argue that more emphasis should be placed on early intervention and prevention strategies rather than punitive measures.
4. Given that Indigenous youth are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, there are concerns that harsher penalties could disproportionately affect these communities.
5. Harsher penalties for young offenders might lead to increased recidivism rates and further entrenchment in the criminal justice system.

While Crisafulli’s plan demonstrates a strong commitment to addressing youth crime, experts suggest that a more comprehensive, long-term strategy that balances prevention, rehabilitation, and community support may be more effective in achieving lasting reductions in youth crime rates.

Currently, the Youth Justice Act 1992 in Queensland establishes a comprehensive framework for dealing with young offenders, aiming to balance community safety with rehabilitation and reintegration of youth. The key principles and purposes of the Act include:

1. Establishing a fair and balanced youth justice system that holds young offenders accountable while recognising their unique needs and vulnerabilities.
2. Prioritising community safety, particularly from serious repeat offenders.
3. Encouraging young offenders to accept responsibility for their actions and make amends.
4. Recognising the importance of family and community, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, in rehabilitating and reintegrating young offenders.
5. Ensuring that detention is used only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.
6. Encouraging parental involvement and responsibility in addressing youth offending and allowing victim participation in the justice process.
7. Promoting reintegration into the community through education, training, and employment opportunities.

The Act provides a range of sentencing options, including restorative justice orders, probation, community service, and detention, to address different levels of offending. It also emphasises the importance of rehabilitation programs and support services to address the underlying causes of youth crime and reduce reoffending.

Our team are experts in criminal law, including Youth Justice. 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 November 2024, Victoria passed significant legislation amending the rules for medicinal cannabis users and driving.

Previously and irrespective of whether you had lawfully been prescribed medical cannabis, it was an offence to have a relevant drug present in your blood or salvia whilst driving and mandatory licence disqualifications applied.

The key points of this legislative change are:

1. New Discretionary Powers for Magistrates

The amendment grants magistrates’ new discretionary powers when dealing with cases involving medicinal cannabis users, who test positive for THC during roadside drug tests. This change represents a shift from the previous automatic penalties.

2. Retention of Driving Privileges

Under the new legislation, medicinal cannabis patients who are charged with driving with THC in their system may be allowed to keep their driving licence. This decision now falls under the discretion of the magistrates, who will have the power to make this determination from early 2025.

3. Continued Illegality of THC Presence

It’s important to note that the presence of THC in a driver’s system remains an offence. The amendment does not legalise driving with THC for medicinal cannabis users but instead provides a pathway for case-by-case evaluation.

4. Implementation Timeline

The new discretionary powers are set to come into effect in early 2025, allowing time for the judicial system to adapt to these changes.

This legislative amendment marks a significant shift in how Victoria handles cases involving medicinal cannabis users and driving, moving away from automatic penalties and towards a more nuanced approach that considers individual circumstances.

These new legislative amendments do not apply in Queensland, however it expected to pave the path for legislative charge in this state.

Our team are experts in 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 are charged, with driving with a relevant drug being present in your saliva or blood, we highly recommend you obtain legal advice immediately. In Queensland, mandatory minimum periods apply in relation to licence disqualification.

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 National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in Australia has undergone significant legislative changes, with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 coming into effect 3 October 2024. These changes apply in all states and territories, including Queensland.

Prosecution and Penalties

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 introduces significant changes to prosecutions and penalties for NDIS providers and individuals involved in the scheme.

Key aspects include:

1. Increased maximum penalties for providers who harm NDIS participants, rising from $400,000 to over $15 million.
2. New criminal offences to deter unscrupulous behaviour and prevent harm to people with disabilities.
3. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission now has the power to refer providers for criminal prosecution, particularly for serious failures to comply with registration conditions.
4. Expanded scope of banning orders to include individuals operating in critical areas such as auditing and consulting activities.
5. Stricter regulatory requirements and stronger penalties for those violating NDIS rules.

Budget Amounts and Funding Periods

After October 3, 2024, when a participant’s plan is reviewed, they will receive a new plan with a total funding amount instead of line-by-line supports. This change aims to provide clarity on the total available funding and its duration. Initially, new plans will have a 12-month duration, with the possibility of longer periods in the future.

Reassessment Process

The legislation clarifies the process for reassessing participant status, ensuring a more streamlined approach to determining ongoing eligibility and support needs.

Spending Restrictions

Participants are now required to spend money only on NDIS supports and in accordance with their plan. This change aims to ensure that funding is used appropriately and effectively.

Transition Period

While the changes took effect on 3 October 2024, not all changes will be implemented simultaneously. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) has committed to supporting participants through these changes, providing information and guidance as new aspects of the legislation are rolled out.

These changes aim to significantly increase protections for scheme participants and workers while improving the quality of supports. The legislation aligns penalties for harming NDIS participants with those for harming workers under workplace health and safety laws. The reforms are designed to keep dishonest providers out of the NDIS and ensure higher standards of support and services for participants over time.

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 topic of abortion has recently resurfaced in the news in Queensland due to concerning discussions about potentially recriminalising abortion. This has prompted a strong response from medical and advocacy organisations to defend abortion rights

Abortion in Queensland has a complex legal and social history spanning over a century. Prior to 2018, abortion was criminalised under the Queensland Criminal Code of 1899 under sections 224, 225, and 226.

Section 224 made it a criminal offence to perform an abortion, with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Section 225 made it illegal for a woman to attempt to procure her own miscarriage, with a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

Section 226 made it illegal to assist someone in procuring an abortion, with a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment.

The law remained largely unchanged for decades, forcing many Queensland women to travel interstate for abortions.

A significant development occurred in 1986 when Judge McGuire handed down the decision in R v Bayliss and Cullen. His Honour applied the reasoning from the Victorian case R v Davidson (1969), known as the Menhennitt ruling, to Queensland law.

The ruling established that abortion could be lawful if performed to protect a woman’s physical or mental health.

Judge McGuire interpreted section 282 of the Queensland Criminal Code as providing a defence to charges of unlawful abortion under Section 224.

The ruling stated that a prosecution under section 224 would fail unless the Crown could prove the abortion was not performed “for the preservation of the mother’s life” and was not “reasonable having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all the circumstances of the case”.

This decision allowed abortions to be performed legally if the doctor honestly and reasonably believed it was necessary to preserve the woman from serious danger to her life or physical or mental health.

The ruling was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Queensland and was later followed in other cases, such as Veivers v Connolly in 1995.

A major shift occurred in 2018 when the Queensland Parliament passed the Termination of Pregnancy Act. This landmark legislation decriminalised abortion, removing it from the Criminal Code and treating it as a health issue.

Key provisions of the new (and current) law include:

• Abortion is available on request up to 22 weeks of pregnancy.
• After 22 weeks, two doctors must approve the procedure.
• 150-meter safe access zones are established around abortion clinics.
• Doctors with conscientious objections must refer patients to providers who will perform the procedure.

This reform brought Queensland in line with several other Australian states and territories that had already decriminalised abortion. It marked a significant change in the legal and social landscape, ending over a century of criminalisation and uncertainty in Queensland.

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.

A 66 year old diabetic driver has been acquitted of all charges related to a tragic incident that claimed the lives of five individuals, including two children. The incident, which occurred in November 2023 at the Royal Daylesford Hotel (Victoria), has raised significant concerns about the intersection of medical conditions and legal responsibility.

The Incident

Swale faced a three day committal hearing at the Ballarat Magistrates Court in Victoria, contesting the 14 charges, including five counts of culpable driving causing death. He was involved in a devastating crash that saw his white BMW SUV plough into a beer garden, striking patrons seated outside the venue.

The loss of life in this incident has left the local community reeling and mourning the tragic circumstances.

Medical Condition and Defense

Swale, diagnosed with type-1 diabetes in 1994, claimed that he experienced a “severe hypoglycaemic attack” while driving, which led to the collision. Witnesses reported finding Swale sitting behind the wheel in a dazed state shortly after the crash. Medical experts and emergency responders testified to the severity of his condition, which played a crucial role in his defense.

His barrister, Dermot Dann KC (King’s Counsel), argued that Swale was effectively unconscious during the incident due to the hypoglycaemic episode. This medical defense raised critical questions about culpability and the extent to which an individual can be held accountable for actions taken during a medical emergency.

The Court’s Ruling

Magistrate Guillaume Bailin ultimately ruled in favour of Swale, stating that the prosecution’s case was significantly flawed. He emphasised that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction on any of the charges. In his remarks, Bailin noted, “The evidence is so weak that the prospects of conviction are minimal.”

Community Response

The outcome of the hearing has generated a mixed response. Many express sympathy for the victims and their families, emphasising the need for justice in such tragic circumstances. Others argue for a deeper understanding of the medical issues at play and the challenges faced by individuals with chronic conditions.

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 Thailand, the adage “only the poor go to jail” resonates to locals, particularly in the case of Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya, heir to the Red Bull fortune. This case highlights the disparities within some foreign justice systems, where wealth can at times overshadow accountability.

On 3 September 2012, Vorayuth Yoovidhya, then 27, allegedly crashed his Ferrari into a police officer’s motorbike on a busy Bangkok road. The collision tragically resulted in the officer’s death, as he was dragged nearly 200 metres under the car. Eyewitness accounts and physical evidence indicated that Yoovidhya fled the scene, leaving behind a trail of oil that led police to his luxury residence. Subsequent toxicology tests reportedly revealed alcohol and cocaine in his system.

Initial reports suggested he was travelling at a shocking 177 kilometres per hour in an 80 kph zone. He faced five criminal charges, including hit-and-run and reckless driving causing death. However, despite these serious allegations, Yoovidhya has yet to face court, even 12 years later.

The Flight from Justice

While victims and their families seek closure, Yoovidhya has evaded legal consequences, enjoying a lavish lifestyle abroad. His high profile escapes – attending Formula 1 races and snowboarding in Japan – fuel public outrage. Last week, eight individuals accused of aiding his flight from justice, including high-ranking police officials and a former deputy attorney-general, will stand trial in the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct (CCCM).

Despite multiple opportunities to present himself to prosecutors, Yoovidhya consistently cited illness or business obligations abroad, effectively dodging legal accountability. A warrant for his arrest was finally issued in 2017, but he had already fled the country.

Broader Implications

This case reflects a troubling trend in Thailand, where public trust in the legal system is waning. Allegations of police corruption, including ties to criminal organisations and abuses of power, have further eroded confidence.

Australian Legal System

Australia operates under a common law framework that aims to hold all individuals accountable, regardless of their wealth or status. The Australian legal system includes mechanisms such as judicial independence and anti-corruption bodies, which are designed to prevent the kind of alleged abuses seen in the above case.

The robust media scrutiny and public advocacy in Australia further contribute to holding the powerful accountable.

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 NSW government recently announced that it will take a bill to parliament later this month that will reform current domestic violence laws. If the bill is successful there will be multiple changes introduced to alert the community that the NSW justice system is prioritising the safety of victim-survivors.

What are the proposed changes?

One change would include a new offence under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, “knowingly contravening an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) with intent to cause harm or fear”. This offence would carry a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $11 000.

Another new offence would also be introduced for persistent breaches of ADVO. If an offender breaches the ADVO three or more times in a 28-day period they could face a penalty of five years imprisonment and a $16 500 fine.

Additionally, there are new domestic violence orders that could be issued. A Serious Domestic Abuse Prevention Order (SDAPO) would give police and prosecutors the ability to impose any conditions they deem necessary on the order. These orders would have a maximum five-year duration, and breaches considered a criminal offence. A breach would carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a $33 000 fine.

A further change that could be imposed is broadening the definition of “stalking” in the Crimes Act. The stalking definition would make specific reference to GPS trackers due to statistics found by the NSW Crime Commission earlier this year. They found one in four people who purchased a GPS tracking device since 2023 has a history of domestic violence.

The last change that could be made is that sole parents would be allowed to change their child’s name, if they have a Family Court order to that effect. This is to prevent perpetrators from learning a child’s new name or address.