Author: Jones + Associates

by Jones + Associates

Rare “Mosley Order” awarded

Recently, Jones + Associates were successful in obtaining a “Mosley Order” for one of our clients.

The District Court in Cairns made the order, which is a temporary stay of criminal proceedings until and unless costs are paid to the defendant. In this case, the crown were ordered to pay $50,000.00 in order to be permitted to continue their prosecution against the defendant.

A “Mosley Order” is only able to be awarded in the event the court can be satisfied of both the following:

1. Is the crown at fault? and
2. Did the crown’s actions result in unfairness and detriment to the defendant?

In this case, the court found the crown seriously defaulted in two (2) aspects. First, the crown failed by not securing a crucial witness’ attendance for the trial, set to commence on 29 April 2024.

The crown’s inability to secure the witness was deemed to be a serious failure due to the fact that the crown case could not succeed without that witness. In fact, that witness was the foundation of the crown case. Furthermore, the witness was actually compelled to attend, as he had previously received a discount on his own criminal sentence in exchange for agreeing to testify.

Despite this, the crown did not subpoena the witness. Neither did they attempt to exercise their power to compel that this witness attend, which they had the power to do pursuant to the Evidence Act.

Instead, the crown made application to adjourn the trial, arguing all reasonable steps were taken to have the witness attend.

Secondly, the court found the crown failed in their duty to disclose all materials that would tend to assist the case for the defendant. Despite repeated requests from defence since 2021, the crown failed to disclose evidence labelled “email exchange folders”, despite that evidence being listed on the initial index of exhibits in 2018.

Contrary to the multiple reasons provided to defence for the lack of disclosure, the crown submitted to the court that they were not “in possession” of the material as was required by the Criminal Code to make the material strictly disclosable. The court disagreed and found that not only did prosecution have possession of the materials, but they were also locatable without unreasonable effort.

As a result of these failures by the crown, the trial was adjourned to a date to be fixed. The court found the adjournment as a result of the crown’s failures was unfair to the defendant and subsequently caused him detriment.

It was found the appropriate remedy was to issue a “Mosely Order”, temporarily staying the proceedings until and unless the Crown causes $50,000.00 to be paid to the defendant.

Whilst orders such as these have occurred sporadically in other jurisdictions, this is the largest successful reported instance of a “Mosley Order” being granted in Queensland and the first of its kind in at least five years.

The team at Jones + Associates are proud to have achieved this rare outcome for our client. This result ensures there is precedent for a new mechanism available to defendant’s (whether individuals or companies) to ensure fairness in government-funded prosecutions.

Should you or those close to you require assistance navigating the justice system, call Jones + Associates on (07) 3229 3166.

DOWNLOAD THE JUDGMENT

by Jones + Associates

Electoral fraud – Liberal party candidate

Last week, Jones + Associates appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on behalf of a client charged with ‘electoral fraud’.

On May 31, 2024, our client entered a plea of guilty before the court acknowledging he registered the incorrect address on the Australian Electoral Roll via the AEC Online Enrolment Form. That address was being informally leased by our client, but he was yet to physically move to that address, which is a requirement at law.

The learned sentencing Magistrate took all relevant matters into account before ordering that the client enter into a recognisance in the amount of $1,000.00, conditioned to be of good behaviour for a period of two (2) years (Section 19B(1)(d) of the Crimes Act). Consequently, a conviction was not recorded.

In contemplating the appropriate sentence, the court considered various matters in mitigation, including our client’s otherwise impeccable character, contributions to the community and that this matter had been attended with significant media attention.

This finalises a lengthy and stressful time in our client’s life.

Whilst preparing the matter, it became clear that similar issues had arisen in the 2022 Federal election. Notably, a Labour candidate, who was previously held in high regard as a senior economic advisor to the former Prime Minister, was registered to vote in a different electorate to where that candidate was campaigning. Following the Federal Election, that candidate secured his seat. He addressed the allegations, admitting it was an election oversight.  Remarkably, the matter was not referred to the AFP for investigation that candidate was not charged for his alleged wrongdoing.

Should you or those close to you ever require assistance or advice in relation to any Commonwealth matters you should contact us at (07) 3229 3166.

by Jones + Associates

Driving on a Suspended or Disqualified Licence in Queensland: 2024 Update

More than ever before, a valid driver’s licence is essential for getting to work, school, grocery stores, medical appointments, and places of worship. Particularly in rural areas, driving is often the only practical way to maintain social connections with neighbours and the broader community. However, it is important to remember that the right to drive is a privilege, not an entitlement.

Driving while your licence is suspended or disqualified is a serious offence that can lead to significant penalties. In this updated article for 2024, we will discuss what you need to know about these offences and the potential consequences.

Driving on a Suspended Licence in Queensland

Under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, it is illegal to drive on a public road in Queensland without a valid driver’s licence. If you are caught driving whilst your licence is suspended or expired, you will face penalties which may include imprisonment. To be convicted of driving on a suspended licence, the prosecution must prove that:

1. You were driving a motor vehicle on a public road;
2. You did not hold a valid driver’s licence; and
3. Your driver’s licence was suspended in Queensland and for what specific reason.

The severity of the punishment upon conviction will depend on the specific circumstances of your case, including any mitigating or aggravating factors.

Driving whilst Disqualified in Queensland

Disqualification is the harshest penalty that can be imposed against a person’s license by a Queensland court. When a person’s licence is disqualified, it is physically confiscated, and their driving privileges revoked for a specified period. After the disqualification period finalises, a person must apply for and receive a new licence before they can lawfully re-commence driving.

It is important to note that you cannot drive once your driver’s licence is disqualified, with one exception: if you qualify for and obtain a restricted driver’s licence for work-related purposes. If you are caught driving on a public road without a restricted licence during the disqualification period, you will be charged with driving whilst disqualified.

The penalties for a conviction for driving whilst disqualified begin at a further 2 year disqualification period as well as a potential period of imprisonment. The exact penalty will depend on the specific circumstances of your case, taking into account both mitigating and aggravating factors.

Penalties for Driving on a Suspended Licence and Driving whilst Disqualified

From 2023, the penalties for driving on a suspended licence in Queensland are the same as those for driving without a valid licence. For a first offence, you could face a fine of up to $5,514.00 and a maximum period of one (1) year imprisonment.

However, in some circumstances including if you have not committed a similar offence within the last 5 years, you may be able to avoid the requirement to attend court. In these circumstances, police have a discretion to issue an infringement notice and can instead issue a maximum fine of $5,514.00.

Magistrates Courts, which typically hear traffic offences, do not always possess a discretion as to whether or not to impose disqualifications. If found guilty of driving while your licence is suspended, your licence will be confiscated for a maximum of 6 months, regardless of any other penalties imposed.

Driving whilst disqualified is considered a more serious offence and carries more severe penalties. Upon conviction, your driver’s licence will be confiscated for a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 5 years. You may also face substantial fines and up to 18 months in jail.

The Importance of Experienced Queensland Criminal Lawyers

If you are charged with driving on a suspended licence or driving whilst disqualified in Queensland, it is crucial to have a qualified lawyer on your side. Our experienced Criminal Law team at Jones + Associates can quickly assess your situation and develop an effective defence strategy. Depending on your specific circumstances, we may argue that:

1. You had a valid licence at the time of the alleged offence;
2. You were not driving on a public road as defined by law;
3. Your licence was suspended on invalid grounds, or there is a dispute regarding the validity of your suspension;
4. You were under significant duress or threat of violence, compelling you to drive; or
5. You had to drive due to an emergency or similar situation.

With your livelihood and freedom at stake, it is essential to act quickly. Contact our team to learn more about how we can help.

by Jones + Associates

Enhancing Protections for Vulnerable Witnesses: The Potential Impact of the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024

The Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024, recently introduced in the Australian Parliament, aims to bolster protections for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and vulnerable persons in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. This legislation has the potential to significantly improve the experiences of vulnerable witnesses and victim-survivors engaging with the criminal justice system, while also raising important considerations regarding its practical implementation and interaction with existing State and Territory laws.

Key Measures and Their Potential Impact

One of the most notable aspects of the bill is the expansion of circumstances in which vulnerable people involved in court proceedings as complainants or witnesses are afforded enhanced protections. This includes making evidence about sexual reputation inadmissible for all victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and placing greater restrictions on evidence relating to a person’s sexual experience. By limiting the admissibility of such evidence, the bill seeks to reduce the potential for re-traumatisation and encourage more potential complainants to come forward and participate in the criminal justice process.

The introduction of pre-recording of evidence hearings is another significant measure proposed in the bill. This allows for the pre-recording of a vulnerable person’s evidence, which can then be used in subsequent trials and retrials. By minimising the need for vulnerable witnesses to repeatedly provide testimony, this reform aims to address barriers that may deter people from giving evidence.

The bill further clarifies that complainants may publish self-identifying information or give informed consent to a third party, such as a media organisation, to publish that information.

Balancing Protections with Fair Trial Rights

While the enhanced protections for vulnerable witnesses are generally welcomed, it is crucial to ensure that these reforms are balanced against the crucial and fundamental right to a fair trial. As Greg McIntyre SC, president of the Law Council of Australia, notes, an accused must still be able to test the evidence against them. The bill’s expansion of protections applies to a specific list of offences, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and drug offences involving children, which tend to help maintain this balance.

The provision allowing courts to order pre-recorded evidence hearings for vulnerable persons, if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so. This aligns with recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. However, the practical implementation of this measure will require careful consideration to ensure that procedural fairness is maintained for all parties involved.

Interaction with State and Territory Laws

One potential limitation of the bill’s impact is that it only applies to Commonwealth sexual violence offences, while the vast majority of sexual crimes fall within the legislation of individual States or Territories. For example, some of the protections proposed in the bill, such as recording complainant evidence for later use in trials, are already in place in some states like New South Wales.

However, the bill does introduce changes that go beyond some current State legislation. For example, it restricts evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual experience only to activities with the defendant, which is narrower than most current State provisions. The bill also allows for the pre-recording of adult complainant evidence, representing a significant shift in how criminal trials have traditionally operated.

The interaction between the proposed Commonwealth provisions and existing State and Territory laws will require careful navigations to ensure consistency and avoid unintended consequences. Obviously, the importance of clarifying how these provisions will work together, particularly in cases involving both Commonwealth and State or Territory offences, cannot be understated.

Looking forward

As the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 progresses through the legislative process, it will be essential to closely monitor its potential impacts and address any concerns raised by stakeholders. The bill’s passage through the committee review process will provide an opportunity for further scrutiny and refinement to ensure that it achieves the intended objectives whilst upholding the principles of a fair and just criminal justice system.

If you would like to know more about the proposed legislation, talk to one of the team at Jones + Associates today.

by Jones + Associates

Bail secured for alleged ‘tobacco empire mastermind’

In recent weeks Jones + Associates conducted an application for bail in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant is alleged to be the “mastermind behind a tobacco empire” worth in excess of $20M.

Following an extensive investigation undertaken by the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC), the applicant was charged with 55 criminal offences relating to the alleged operation of tobacco stores, including offences related to dealing with the proceeds of those stores.

The application conducted by our office was successful and the applicant was released back into the community.

This result was particularly pleasing given the challenging circumstances surrounding the matter, including the seriousness of the alleged offences.

A common issue encountered in applications such as these is the fact that the crown (DPP/CCC/Police) are not required to provide evidence of the matters they assert in court. That generally means there are many ‘facts’ argued regarding the alleged offending that the court can accept without any actual evidence being provided or referred to by the crown.

The difficulty faced by those attempting to secure bail is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mount any compelling argument against allegations when there is no evidence relied upon to support that allegation.

The importance of well-considered tactical approaches to applications such as this cannot be underestimated. There are many different considerations court must take into account when considering whether to grant bail and having experienced and competent advice will assist in ones prospects of success with these often complex and costly applications.

Should you have any queries regarding Supreme Court bail applications please do not hesitate to contact our office on (07) 3229 3166.

by Jones + Associates

Can the Police intercept and search my vehicle?

It is common for people to be charged with drug and property offences arising from being pulled over by police and being subject to either a personal and/or  a vehicle search.

It is important for people to understand what the Police’s powers are and subsequently what your individual rights are, in these types of situations.

Power to stop a vehicle

There are prescribed circumstances under which Police can stop a vehicle pursuant to section 60 (3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (‘PPRA’). They include:

• To enforce a Transport Act or the Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland);
• To check whether the vehicle complies, or the person is complying, with any transport Act or the Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland);
• To monitor or enforce a liquor provision;
• Enforcing a contravention of law involving putting, dropping and leaving litter on a public place from a vehicle;
• To conduct a breath test or saliva test;
• To investigate the emission of excessive noise from;
  • A motor vehicle on a road or in a public place; or
  • A motorbike being driven on a place other than a road;
• To give a noise abatement direction to the person responsible for the emission of excessive noise from-
  • A motor vehicle on a road or in a public place; or
  • A motorbike being driven on a place other than a road;
• To impound or immobilise a motor vehicle under chapter 4;
• To enforce the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998, section 26VC;
• To give the person any of the following under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 –
  • Public safety order;
  • A restricted premises order;
  • A fortification removal order;
  • To give a person, under section 53BAC an official warning for consorting…” (statutory notes and examples omitted, emphasis added)

So when can police stop my vehicle?

Many of the circumstances prescribed by Section 60 (3) are unique to specific circumstances and not relevant to most people.

The most common use of Section 60 (3) is to stop vehicles to conduct a “licence check”, to ensure drivers are licenced to drive a motor vehicle. This is a legitimate purpose for which police can stop a vehicle.

A common methodology/tactic used by police is to stop people for a “licence check” and use this as an opportunity to question them about whether there are any ‘items of interest’ in their vehicle and attempt to form a basis for a ‘reasonable suspicion’ to allow them to search a vehicle pursuant to section 31 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act.

This methodology was subject to a recent application in the Supreme Court of Queensland (R v Davis [2023] QSC 112) complaining of the tactics and behaviour of police on that occasion.

His Honour Justice Davis was critical of this approach by police. His Honour distinguished the differences between s31 and s60, and their different purposes and uses. His Honour determined that police in that instance improperly used s60 to stop the vehicle, despite doing so with a purpose of investigating a potential drug offence, which would require a reasonable suspicion pursuant to s31.

In this instance, the Applicant’s mobile phone and an amount of methylamphetamine was discovered during the search. Further, he was subject to interviews with police on 13 April 2019 and 17 June 2019. His Honour excluded all of this evidence as a result of police’s misuse of their powers pursuant to the PPRA.

What do I do if I have been charged with an offence following the search of my vehicle by police?

If you have been pulled over by police, you should always comply with police’s demands but be aware you should not consent to any search of your vehicle. Should you consent to police searching your vehicle, they may (and will) conduct that search whether the basis of the search would otherwise be illegal, but for the consent.

Should you have had your vehicle searched and as a result have been charged with criminal offences, you should immediately legal advice.

If police have acted beyond their powers as prescribed by the legislation, you may have a legal argument available to you to exclude the evidence discovered during the search.

At Jones + Associates, we have extensive experience in the area of unlawful searches and have conducted numerous successful applications before the courts.

We are always available to discuss your matters and give you advice as to your prospects of any argument in relation to an illegal search. You can contact us at (07) 3229 3166. 

by Jones + Associates

Human Trafficking in Australia

Human trafficking is a heinous crime that strips individuals of their fundamental rights and dignity. Despite the common understanding of Human Trafficking being the buying and selling of people, there are multiple forms of human trafficking throughout Australia and the world.

The modern day types of Human Trafficking in Australia include the following:

Sex Trafficking

Sex trafficking is one of the most common forms of human trafficking in Australia. Victims, predominantly women and children, are typically coerced or deceived into the commercial sex industry. They are subjected to sexual exploitation through brothels, massage parlours, and other illicit establishments. This form of trafficking often involves the exploitation of people either  newly migrated to Australia or convinced to come to Australia by the ‘trafficker’.

Labour Trafficking

Labour trafficking involves the exploitation of individuals for their labour through force, fraud, or coercion. Victims are often promised jobs and wages but end up trapped in situations of forced labour, debt bondage, or domestic servitude. Industries such as agriculture, construction, hospitality, and domestic work are particularly vulnerable to labour trafficking.

Organ Trafficking

Although less prevalent, organ trafficking is a disturbing form of human trafficking in Australia. Victims are coerced or deceived into giving up their organs, often for financial gain or to pay off debts. This illegal trade not only exploits vulnerable individuals but also poses severe health risks to both donors and recipients.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, estimates establish between 600 and 1,800 victims of human trafficking in Australia at any given time.

Concerningly, the Global Slavery Index 2018 ranked Australia as one of the countries with the highest estimated prevalence of modern slavery, with approximately 15,000 people trapped in various forms of exploitation.

The Australian government has taken steps to combat human trafficking through legislation, such as the Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Persons Offences) Act 2005 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2021.

However, challenges remain, including identifying alleged victims, identifying and dismantling trafficking networks and addressing the causes of vulnerability, such as poverty, lack of education, and discrimination.

Recently, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has intensified its efforts to combat human trafficking through various initiatives and operations. The AFP’s Human Trafficking Operations team coordinates investigations and works closely with domestic and international partners to dismantle trafficking networks.

One of the notable recent operations was Operation Rang Majori, a joint effort between the AFP and the Department of Home Affairs, which targeted a labour trafficking syndicate operating across multiple states.

The operation resulted in the arrest of several individuals and the identification of numerous victims who were subjected to forced labour and exploitation.

Additionally, the AFP has established the Human Trafficking Response Program, which provides specialised support services to victims, including accommodation, counselling, and legal assistance.

The Australian Government has devised a legal framework to address human trafficking offences. The primary legislation is the Criminal Code Act 1995, which criminalises various forms of trafficking, including trafficking in persons, trafficking in children, and domestic trafficking.

The maximum penalty for human trafficking offences is 25 years’ imprisonment. If the offense involves aggravating circumstances, such as subjecting a victim to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, the maximum penalty can increase to imprisonment for life.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2021 further strengthened Australia’s laws by criminalising additional forms of exploitation, such as forced labour, forced marriage, and organ trafficking.

In addition to criminal penalties, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allows for the confiscation of assets derived from human trafficking activities, disrupting the financial incentives for traffickers.

Despite these legislative efforts, challenges remain in effectively identifying and prosecuting human trafficking cases due to the complex nature of the crime and the vulnerability of victims.

Should you require further information or assistance please contact Jones + Associates.

by Jones + Associates

Cocaine Trafficking Sentence

Last week Jones + Associates appeared in the Supreme Court with our client who was sentenced for Trafficking cocaine for a period of one (1) year.

Based in Noosa, our client was sourcing drugs locally, interstate and on occasion internationally, primarily throughout the Covid lockdown period in 2020. He was sentenced on the basis that his ‘sales’ were predominantly “streel level”, being between 1-3 grams, but on occasion there were larger scale transactions.

Aggravating the offending was the allegation that there was a significant, albeit failed, transaction involving multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, the fallout leading to serious threats being made by way of potential retribution.

The matter took a number of years to resolve after our client was initially arrested in 2021. The almost three (3) years was utilised positively by our client, who took the opportunity after being granted Supreme Court bail to undertake rehabilitative efforts, whilst also positively contributing to the community by working and supporting his family.

In that time, we were successful in ensuring other charged offences were discontinued, including Importation of dangerous drugs x 2 and contempt of court.

At sentence, we were able to tender to the court 11 clean urine tests on behalf of our client, which is the only way to prove someone’s rehabilitative efforts are genuine and successful.

The Presiding Justice sentenced our client to 4 years imprisonment, to be released on a suspended sentence after 12 months.

At the time of originally engaging Jones + associates, our client understood the real prospect of a significant jail term, potentially as much as 10 years. His successful result came from considerable hard work both by us as the lawyers and our client and led to his much reduced sentence.

Getting expert advice and representation is not only important when facing a trial but can be equally as important in achieving a successful outcome at sentence. The process of preparing for a sentence can involve negotiating charges, facts of each charge as well as providing advice as to what clients can do to best achieve a positive result. Having lawyers prepared to vigorously and competently defend their clients is extremely important, however as is having lawyers who are similarly as effective at negotiations when they become required.

At Jones + Associates we understand each matter and client is different and that providing the best representation is also providing the best advice and being able to negotiation effectively when required.

Should you or anyone close to you wish to discuss legal matters or require representation, call the experts at Jones + Associates on (07) 3229 3166.

by Jones + Associates

Coercive Control

Queensland Parliament is implementing new laws criminalising coercive control after recent passage through state parliament earlier this month.

The laws come after the State Government previously established a Taskforce in 2021 to examine coercive control and review the need for a specific offence in the context of domestic violence.

The Taskforce recommended that immediate legislative reforms are required to strengthen Queensland’s current response to coercive control and this legislation implements those recommendations through amendments to the Criminal Code, Domestic Violence Act, Evidence Act and the Penalties and Sentences Act.

Whilst coercive and controlling behaviours are defined under “domestic violence” in the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act, coercive control does not currently constitute a criminal offence in Queensland.

At present, police can only intervene after the fact rather than addressing the behaviour leading up to any incident of domestic violence. For example, if there has been an incident or allegation of domestic violence police can take action regarding that specific incident; not the associated behaviour that may have occurred prior to the incident. This was deemed critical because behaviour that is considered coercively controlling is viewed as a precursor to other forms of domestic violence, including stalking or assault.

The new laws are expected to come into force in 2025 and will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

To put in context, the maximum penalty for coercive control is more than one faces when charged with any of the following:

• Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm;
• Bribery;
• Escaping lawful custody;
• Sexual Assault;
• Kidnapping;
• Break and Enter.

The legal profession widely considers these laws to have been poorly considered before being rushed through parliament. It seems the state is attempting to further interfere in the private lives of the community and legislate against any arguments or disputes that occur within relationships.

There is currently rightful outrage about neighbourhood crime, such as break and enters, and the apparent lack of police presence to both deter these crimes but also to respond when required. The government is now requiring extra police resources be committed to enforce “coercive control” laws, further eroding the availability of police to respond to other matters such as tackling the youth crime concerns.

The current Domestic Violence Legislation already offers significant protection for those in need. There was seemingly no requirement for these latest amendments but for the ever increasing encroachment on the private lives of those in the community. There seems no plausible explanation for criminalising, for instance, having a family savings account that one partner does not have autonomy over.

Our job at Jones + Associates, Brisbane Domestic Violence Lawyers is to assist members of the community understand the changes to the legislation and assist those who are directly affected.

If you or anyone you know are in need assistance with your matter, we are here to help. Contact Jones + Associates today.

by Jones + Associates

Fraud Case – Good Behaviour Bond

Our office recently acted for a client charged with Fraud over $30,000.00 and Receiving Tainted Property. After successful negotiations by our office, the offences were substituted with one count of Uttering. Samantha Farr of our office appeared for our client at the sentence proceedings before the Maroochydore District Court, at which time the presiding judge placed our client on a good behaviour order, conditioned that she be of good behaviour for 12 months. No conviction was recorded.

Case Summary:

During court proceedings in the Maroochydore District Court, our client admitted to presenting a falsified payslip to secure a $41,000 car loan in 2021. The prosecution alleged that our client, financially reliant on her former partner, was aware that he had fabricated payslips for her loan application, noting that he had sent her forged documents suggesting she earned a monthly wage from a company where she was not employed.

On behalf of our client, it was explained that the motive behind her conduct was to obtain a safe vehicle for her child, as she was pregnant at the time. The Presiding Judge pointed out that our client’s wrongdoing escalated when she requested a third forged payslip from her former partner. Nevertheless, our client was placed on a good behaviour order, conditioned that she be of good behaviour for 12 months.

Should you have any queries in relation to fraud and dishonesty related offences, you should contact Jones + Associates as a matter of priority on (07) 3229 3166.