Timeline Photos

We have all seen the cop shows where they say "you have the right to remain silent", every criminal lawyer will tell you not to talk to the police. Maybe, just maybe there is a reason for this. Take the below example: Tim was having a great night out, a few drinks and some good music with some mates. Randomly he noticed a guy wearing the same shirt as him but thought nothing of it. A few hours later things got heated when one of Tim's friend started a fight. Everyone got involved. There was no security or CCTV. A few hours later and the police have rocked up at Tim's house asking to come in. They were nice enough, they seemed to understand it was all it bit of a misunderstanding. One of the officers asked him what colour shirt he was wearing earlier that night. Thinking it was not a serious question like "who did you hit?" or "Why did you hit him?", he told them about the blue shirt with the white light bulb printed on the front. That's all the police needed to arrest Tim and take him to the watch-house. Tim was then charged with Grievous Bodily Harm. It turns out one of the people in the fight was king hit in the head, fell over and knocked all of his teeth out. A witness said the person who threw the punch was wearing a blue shirt with a white light bulb. Answering one simple, seemingly innocent answer has made fighting the charge a whole lot more difficult than had he just called his lawyer and refused to do an interview. If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the 'Boys in Blue'... Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved. The above is a fictitious illustration of why giving an interview to the police is often a really bad idea.

Brisbane’s entry for the award for the world’s dumbest criminal

An educational video on how to ensure your defence lawyer has no defence... https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31177052/brisbane-s-entry-for-the-award-for-the-world-s-dumbest-criminal/#page1

Caboolture Criminal Lawyer's cover photo

Timeline Photos

What if drugs are found in your house that don't belong to you? The law presumes that if drugs are found in a house you occupy, you own the drugs. To fight the charge the person needs to show: 1. They were not the occupier of the property; or 2. Neither knew or had reason to suspect the drug was in or on that place. The below story looks at how a person argued they were to the 'occupier' of the place the drugs were found. Penny and Michael were in an on and off relationship, for the most part when they were together they lived in Penny's house in Morayfield. After a particularity heated argument Penny told Michael to pack up his stuff and get out of her house. Michael packed up most of his gear and moved in with a mate at Logan. Two days later he went back to Penny's house to collect the rest of his stuff. Someone tipped off the police drugs would be found at Penny's house. The police executed a search warrant while Michael was packing up the last of his belongings. In one of the spare rooms (that had been Michael's room) the police found a few grams of Green Leafy Material that turned out to be marijuana. The police also found a few of his razors and X-Box games and other items of clothing and thought he was an occupier of the Morayfield house. The police charged Michael with possession. The Magistrate at first instance found that he was an occupier of the property because he had not completely moved out of the Morayfield property and was splitting his time between the house in Morayfield and the one owned by his friend in Logan. On appeal the judges decided that Micheal had ceased to be an 'occupier' when he was told to leave by Penny and moved most of his property to Logan. Another judge also went on to state that his license (a legal word for permission) to live at the property was revoked so he could not have been an occupier of the property when the drugs were found. The result: Michael was not guilty of possessing the drugs. If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the 'Boys in Blue'... Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.The basic facts of the above example were taken from Thow v Campbell [1997] 2 Qd R 324.

Two women arrested after Thelma and Louise-style runaway

"As long as everything goes exactly the way I want it, I am totally flexible" - Thelma and Louise Pretty sure this didn't end as planned... http://m.caboolturenews.com.au/news/two-women-arrested-after-thelma-and-louise-style-r/3125383/

Caboolture Criminal Lawyer

#themoreyouknow

Timeline Photos

Possession of a drug. Your Rights. Your Defence. Your Lawyer. Can you be charged with possessing a drug if you don't own it? For a charge of possession to stick, the police need to prove you had 'knowledge' and 'control'. This question was answered in R v Todd, below is an illustration of how it works. Ben was hanging out with two of his mates at the Tavern, Jill on a Saturday afternoon. Jill was planning to go to a rave in the next couple of days and had bought a few pills for the occasion. Ben was wasn't all that into pills but was interested in how they work. Jill pulled one of the tablets out to show Ben, pointing out the stamp and what that meant. Just as Jill was explaining how she hoped it would last for a few hours two police officers walked into the bar. Thinking quickly Ben placed a napkin over the pills to hide it from the officers. Unfortunately one of the officers saw this not-so-smooth move and charged Ben with possession. When it first went to court Ben argued it was not his, so he could not be charged with possession. The magistrate disagreed and said there was: 1. knowledge; and 2. Control. Because he knew about the pill and had exercised control over it by trying hide it. In the appeal the court found that as Ben was trying to hide the drugs from the police, he was in trying to exclude everyone else from the drugs for even a fleeting period of time. A charge of possession can stick even when the defendant does not own the drugs. Protect your tomorrow, call today 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778. Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.

This week we had a matter where the charges started out as serious assault and wilful damage. After negotiating with the police it was reduced to wilful damage and public nuisance with important facts agreed upon in the police case. Ultimately our client was fined with no conviction recorded. A result the client was very happy with. If you need assistance with the justice system, we are here to help! 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778

Timeline Photos

For the charge of Possession under Drugs Misuse Act, the prosecution must prove the defendant has 'knowledge' & 'control' of the substance for there to be a 'possession'. Below is an example of how this works: Mary had a massive house party a few weeks ago. One of the party goers, who was a friend of a friend bought a few sticks of weed to help everyone celebrate. During the party the friend put the weed in a cupboard for safe keeping until later. He mentioned this to Mary, who reveling in the festivities took no real note of the information. One afternoon Mary was being questioned by the police, the officer asked if she had any drugs at her house and she replied 'yeah, there is some in the cupboard'. The police asked if they could do a search of her home, Mary told them they must have a warrant. The police turned up with a warrant to do a search. Mary took the police right to the cupboard. Mary told the police that someone had put the weed there at the party, she had looked at it, indented to throw it away but totally forgot about it. Upon further questioning Mary said " I was going to clean out the cupboard and dump everything that was in it”. The Magistrate at the first instance determined Mary had: 1. Knowledge (knew the weed was in the cupboard); and 2. Control (was intending to throw it out in the future). Because she knew of the drugs and was going to throw them out in the future she had possession of the drugs and was found guilty. On appeal the Justices disagreed and found that Mary had only formed an intention to control the drugs (throw them out) in the future. Knowledge of the drug and a future intention to do something with them does not amount to 'control', so there was no possession of the drugs. In the words of Justice Demack "But mere knowledge of its existence coupled with a future intention to exercise control is not enough." Mary was found not guilty of possessing the dangerous drugs! If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the 'Boys in Blue'... If you need to talk to a lawyer, 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778. Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.

Viral Thread

We need this bird in the office.

Timeline Photos

Law Stories: R v Bryant [1984] 2 Qd R 545 Section 227 of the Queensland Criminal Code: Indecent acts. Indecent acts are acts done in public, in public view or with an intent to offend. What is considered as being indecent is a question for a magistrate or a jury. However, some instances are clearly not indecent... like gifting wallaby balls. Yep, you read that right! Giving someone wallaby testicles has been considered by the courts. Below is summary of the case! A man (we will call him Dave, handed Woman (lets call her Clair) a jewellery box, about the size of a ring box, Clair was so excited! How could she not be! Eagerly she unwrapped the box and opened it. What she found was not the kind of 'jewels' she had been hoping for. Inside the box was not a bracelet or diamond earrings but wallaby balls! That's right, the testicles and scrotum of a wallaby. Clair, feeling rather offended and disgusted went to the police and filed a report. A short time later the police charged Dave with an indecent act. What does 'indecent' mean when you have been charged with an 'indecent act'? Well, not a gift of wallaby testicles... In that case, the first Judge directed the jury that indecent "anything that is unbecoming or offensive to common propriety". However, on appeal the judges decided it meant 'a bodily act involving moral turpitude or acting in a base or shameful manner'. What's the difference? Well, 'moral turpitude' is a lot more serious than 'unbecoming or offensive'. undoubtedly, presenting wallaby testicles in a jewellery box is unbecoming and offensive but is absolutely not deprived or wicked in character (definition on turpitude). If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the 'Boys in Blue'... If you need to talk to a lawyer, 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778.

Family Court examines the line between discipline, abuse when punishing children

In Queensland there is a similar defence of 'Domestic Discipline'. "It is only when the discipline transcends those constraints that it becomes abusive and ceases to be lawful correction." "Despite modern society's changing opinion about the morality of corporal punishment of children, the law of NSW still envisages the legitimate administration of physical discipline by an adult to a child, subject to certain constraints," he said. "It is only when the discipline transcends those constraints that it becomes abusive and ceases to be lawful correction." http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-court-examines-the-line-between-discipline-abuse-when-punishing-children-20161126-gsy57o.html