Author: Jones + Associates

by Jones + Associates

Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our criminal justice

In light of the recent matter before the ACT courts, involving Brittany Higgins as the complainant, together with recent news articles discussing unresolved criminal matters, it is important to not judge a person or a matter until the courts have decided the case.

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our criminal justice.  We have all heard the presumption of innocence expressed as, “innocent until proven guilty”.  More properly, the expression ought to be “innocent unless found guilty”.

The expression “innocent until proven guilty” has a connotation of inevitability about it.  That inference of inevitability itself erodes the presumption of innocence and is wrong.

With the explosion of social media and instant access to local, national and international news, the community is easily exposed to a wealth of information and material which even five years ago was not available.  One of the biggest issues encountered in the face of such ease of access is that there is a saturation of stories, even before the Police have concluded their investigations, for example.  

The result is that people have consumed only those facts which are revealed at a particular time and the danger is then that the community generally starts to work on that information to make decisions. The ACT Supreme Court today outlined the dangers posed by the publication of information before matters are concluded. This is a significant danger to the presumption of innocence.

In theory, the news media should not be censored and should not be constrained. People must keep in the forefront of their minds the fact that unless and until they know all of the facts and evidence in relation to a particular matter, they cannot possibly form a proper opinion on a reported criminal matter.  The presumption of innocence must be protected closely.

The presumption of innocence operates to protect all of us. It may sound trivial however if you or a loved one were to ever be falsely accused of an offence, the presumption of innocence would take on far more significance.

The same is true for completed matters that are reported by the media. Often, information is published which stirs public commentary – but again it is done so in the absence of all the facts. Courts are then often criticised for decisions/results when in fact the courts are the only forum that are presented ALL the facts.

by Jones + Associates

The Important Balance of Youth Justice

There has been significant attention given recently to the sentencing of a young man who (at 17 years of age), whilst driving dangerously and under the influence of alcohol and drugs, killed a young couple and their unborn child.

A tragic event such as this has catastrophic and lifelong impacts on everyone associated with the matter, whether that be the victims, their friends or families but also the perpetrator.

As the sentencing judge indicated, no sentence will ever be adequate and cannot do justice to the suffering caused. Unfortunately, nothing can ever undo the events of that day.

With that in mind, the court was faced with sentencing a young person who was only 17 at the time of the offending. The court heard of the extremely unfortunate and tragic events of his own upbringing, one that included neglect, exposure to domestic violence and abuse and early exposure to illicit substances.

It is in the context of a terrible upbringing with a clear lack of positive guidance, together with the immaturity and recklessness that comes with being a 17-year-old, that these tragic events have unfolded.

A judge must balance these factors when assessing a proper penalty that not only punishes this (or any) young person for these terrible acts but also offers an opportunity to rehabilitate and become a contributing member of society.

Thankfully we are not a society that will simply lock the door and throw away the key – giving up on any person who falls foul of the law. There are countless redemption stories of people who have been punished for terrible behaviours, to flourish after having served their punishments.

As a society, we shouldn’t forget that people make mistakes and not all mistakes are equal. Studies show that young males are particularly poor decision-makers and this combined with the difficult upbringing of this young man resulted in this most tragic event. 

The sentence imposed in this case was 10 years imprisonment. There is widespread reporting that he was sentenced to 6 years – this is incorrect. The sentencing judge allowed the young man to apply to the parole board to be released after 6 years, but that is no guarantee to occur and is a decision for the parole board.

The judge was not permitted to impose a sentence any longer than 10 years unless the court found the offence to be particularly heinous in all the circumstances. A classic example of this would be premeditated murder.

Youth Justice Act

The offender did not enter a plea of guilty to murder, and by accepting his plea to manslaughter, the prosecutions accepted he did not intend to kill the victims. That is not an issue for the Youth Justice Act or the courts to deal with – that was accepted by prosecutions. 

It is common for the public to look at a matter such as this and think sentencing laws ought to be tougher. However, without a proper understanding of the factual matters of the offending, the personal matters of the offender as well as sentencing principles, it is unfair to criticise the system.

We have all been young and most of us have family and friends who have or will go through our teenage years when decision-making is often questionable. If your loved one caused a terrible tragedy such as this, I am sure opinions would be very different.

It would not be in the societies best interests to incarcerate young people for decades. What do we expect will happen when they are eventually released, with no prospects/education or qualifications? 

One mistake, even those that lead to horrible and tragic outcomes, should not cause a person to be punished beyond rehabilitation or hope.

by Jones + Associates

Criminal Convictions, Criminal History and Employment

Impact of Clients’ Criminal Matters on Their Job and Employment Prospects in the Future

Clients are often concerned about the impact of their criminal matters on their job and employment prospects in the future. While this article provides important information for people facing criminal convictions or with a criminal history, employers should also take note. While some employees simply cannot do their job because of their criminal history (for example, where they require security clearances), employers should take care when making hiring decisions where applicants have a criminal history. Where a person’s ability to do their job is in no way impacted by their criminal history, employers must take care not to fall foul of anti-discrimination law. Additionally, it may pay to enquire as to the circumstances surrounding an applicant’s offending. Your best employee may have made a foolish mistake or shown a lapse in judgement which has resulted in their criminal history. Jumping to conclusions about a person’s trustworthiness may be at the cost of securing the most competent, hardworking, and loyal employees.

If you are convicted of a criminal offence and a conviction is recorded against you, your criminal history may impact your current employment or your ability to get work in the future.

Employers seek information about current and potential employee’s criminal histories in a number of ways such as:

• Asking for the employee to disclose their criminal history;
• Asking more specific questions such as whether you have ever gone before a Court in relation to a criminal matter or pleaded guilty to a criminal offence;
• Asking for consent to conduct criminal history checks;
• Requiring that employees consent to policies that impose disclosure obligations for any criminal convictions that arise during the course of the person’s employment.

If you are concerned about how your current criminal matters or past criminal convictions may impact your current or future employment, you should obtain legal advice as soon as possible.

Rehabilitation Periods

Certain convictions are subject to what is known as a rehabilitation period. When the rehabilitation period expires, you are entitled to state that you do not have a criminal history, except in certain, limited circumstances. When an adult is convicted on indictment (i.e. in the District Court or the Supreme Court of Queensland) and a conviction is recorded against them, the rehabilitation period usually occurs 10 years after the date of the conviction.

Where a conviction is recorded, other than on indictment (i.e. in the Magistrates Court), the rehabilitation period usually occurs 5 years after the date that the conviction is recorded. Subject to limited exceptions, where the rehabilitation period has expired, it is lawful for a person to claim that they have not been convicted of an offence.

Rehabilitation periods do not apply to certain offences, specifically, where the person has been sentenced to serve any period in custody or a period not exceeding 30 months in custody. This applies whether or not the person actually serves any part of their sentence in custody.

Current Employment

Situations can arise where an employer assumes or for some other reason, incorrectly believes that their employee does not have a criminal history. Where an employer later discovers that this is not the case, the Fair Work Commission has found that, in some instances, undisclosed criminal history is an insufficient basis upon which to terminate a person’s employment.

In Njau v Superior Food Group Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 7626, the Fair Work Commission found that an undisclosed criminal history was not a sufficient basis for dismissing an employee. In that case, the person’s employer could not establish how her criminal history made her unfit for her position. In this matter, the employee did not comply with the employer’s policy to disclose relevant criminal convictions. Some years after starting her employment, her employer asked to conduct criminal history checks on her. Initially, she resisted this but ultimately, she co-operated, and her criminal history came to light. In this situation, the employee’s dishonesty in not disclosing her convictions when she was initially employed was found to be disproportionate to the employer’s response in terminating her employment. Significantly in this matter, the employee was able to perform the functions of her role despite her criminal history.

It’s important to remember that the financial compensation recoverable through the Fair Work Commission in unfair dismissal matters is limited. Reinstatement of employment is described as the ‘primary remedy’ under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) however it will not be ordered if the Commission is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate. Reinstatement will not be appropriate where the relationship between the employee and the employer has broken down to an extent that it is simply impractical for the two to work together again. It’s easy to see how this relationship might quickly disintegrate prior to or in the course of litigation.

This is a significant consideration for applicants when disclosing their criminal history in the course of applying for new employment opportunities. While it may be difficult or embarrassing to disclose criminal history, failure to do so when directly asked may jeopardise your prospects of obtaining reinstatement as a remedy if your history is subsequently discovered and your employer moves to terminate your employment on the basis of your criminal history.

Importantly, these cases turn on their specific facts and may or may not be relevant in considering your circumstances. If you are concerned about your criminal history and whether or not it will impact your prospects of employment in the future or your current employment, you should seek legal advice.

The Law – Human Rights and criminal history

The Australian Human Rights Commission also offers some recourse to people who are subject to adverse action in their employment situation as a result of their criminal history. In the 2015 case of AW v Data#3 Limited [2015] AusHRC 105, the Commission considered a complaint from an employee whose employment was discontinued when his employer became aware of a criminal history he had. The criminal history related to the sale of dangerous drugs.

Ultimately, the Commission found that it was discriminatory to terminate the complainant’s employment on the basis of his criminal history. The Commission recommended that the employee be compensated for the earnings he lost as a result of the discriminatory termination and for the personal distress caused to him. The amount ordered was approximately $75,000.00.

In that matter, it was a fundamental consideration that although employees may be required to obtain security clearances or pass police checks on any given project, the ability to do so was not an inherent requirement of every person holding the position.

Importantly, while this matter establishes that there may be recourse to the Australian Human Rights Commission in instances where an employee is discriminated against on the basis of their criminal history, each matter is different and must be considered on its own specific facts.

It is important to note that while the Commission is empowered to conciliate these matters, they cannot order the payment of compensation.

If you or someone you know is currently concerned about the impact of their criminal history on their current or future employment, call Criminal Lawyers Brisbane at Jones + Associates for legal advice.

by Jones + Associates

Jones + Associates Represent Man Charged with Attempt to Smuggle 200kg of Cocaine

We Represent Man Charged with Attempt to Smuggle 200kg of Cocaine

Yaacov Amsalem, a 50-year-old Israeli national, faced a Brisbane court on Tuesday following his extradition from the Philippines.

Amsalem is facing charges of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and conspiring to traffic a commercial quantity of a controlled drug and conspiracy to deal in the proceeds of crime exceeding $1 million.

by Jones + Associates

Alleged International Drug Lord to Be Represented by Jones + Associates

Alleged International Drug Lord to Be Represented by Jones + Associates

After several years of hiding in the Philippines, Yaacov Amsalem, a French-Israeli national, was turned over to Australian authorities – considered a ‘high-value international drug lord and fugitive,’ according to the Philippines National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

He appeared on Monday in the Brisbane Magistrates Court, represented by Alex Jones of Jones + Associates.

Amsalem was arrested in a bar in Makati Philippines in 2014 having successfully evaded police for many years. Identified by Australian authorities and declared an international fugitive by Interpol, Amsalem was hiding with former soldiers and bodyguards when the arrest was made.

Australian Police tipped off the Philippines NBI which led to the arrest and subsequent extradition to Queensland.

Amsalem will quarantine in Brisbane before an application will be made by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to extradite him to New South Wales to face charges of conspiracy to import drugs, conspiracy to traffic drugs, and conspiracy to deal with monies.

What Do The Next Step?

Contact our experienced Brisbane drug lawyer or fill out an online contact form to hear back from a member of the criminal lawyer’s team today.

by Jones + Associates

RSPCA Prosecutions and Offences Under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001

The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 places a duty of care upon people in charge of animals. This duty of care extends to the provision of food, water and appropriate living conditions. Animals must also be allowed to display normal patterns of behaviour, be provided treatment for illness and injury and be handled appropriately. A person in charge of an animal must take reasonable steps to address these matters.

While there may be a broad consensus as to what amounts to cruel treatment of an animal, whether a person has complied with their duty of care can be a more contentious issue. In determining whether a person has acted appropriately in the care of their animals, the legislation provides that regard must be had to the steps a reasonable person would reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances.

Prohibition Orders

A person who is sentenced for offences under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 may be ordered to comply with a prohibition order. Prohibition orders can be for a certain, limited period of time or continue indefinitely. They can also apply to all animals or a particular type of animal. Any animal lover would appreciate the anguish associated with such a prospect.

The court is empowered to make a prohibition order where, on the balance of probabilities, it is “just” to make the order in the circumstances. In considering whether it is just, the court must consider various matters including: the nature of the offence the person is charged with, the effect of the offence on the animal, the welfare of the animal and the likelihood the person will commit another animal welfare offence.

Costs

If a person’s animals are seized under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, including by the RSPCA, they may be ordered to pay compensation for the costs associated with taking possession of the animals, providing them with accommodation, food, rest or water or arranging for it to receive veterinary or other treatment. For large animals, such as horses, or animals requiring significant medical care, these fees can become exorbitant.

If you or someone you know requires legal advice in relation to animal care and protection or RSPCA matters, contact Grace Townsend at Jones + Associates today.

by Jones + Associates

What You Need to Know About Dangerous Drugs in Queensland

Queensland is renowned for many things, including its fantastic climate, beautiful beaches and resorts. Collectively these attributes make the ‘Sunshine State’ a desirable place to live, and a national and international tourist destination.

Accordingly, there are strict rules in place to protect residents and visitors. In fact, Queensland has some of the toughest drug laws in Australia. Being charged with a dangerous drugs offence here brings the potential for significant punishment upon conviction. This makes it imperative for anyone facing such charges to enlist the help of a qualified defence lawyer as soon as possible.

Offering many years of experience in the field of criminal law, the legal Brisbane criminal lawyers team at Jones + Associates is fully prepared to help if you find yourself involved in a drug matter. Here are some important things you need to know about dangerous drugs in Queensland.

What is a dangerous drug?

For starters, you’ve got to understand how the authorities define “dangerous drugs”. The official definition can be found in the Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987 (Qld), which actually separates them into two categories (Schedule 1 and Schedule 2).

Schedule 1 drugs include but are not limited to:

• Cocaine
• Acid (LSD)
• Heroin
• Ecstasy (MDMA)
• Methamphetamine

Examples of Schedule 2 drugs are:

• Cannabis
• Opium
• Barbituates
• Tranquilizers or benzodiazepines

It’s crucial to understand the difference because Schedule 1 drug offenses tend to carry harsher penalties. This is because is the listed drugs pose a greater risk to the general public.

What qualifies as drug possession in Queensland?

In Queensland, state laws prohibit the possession of any dangerous drug.  However, the term “possession” is broadly defined when used in this context. You may be accused of drug possession if:

• You are aware that the substance in question exists and has control over it. You must also be aware, or have reason to believe, that the substance in question is a drug.
• You meet the criteria specified above, but the drug/s belongs to someone else.
• The substance is discovered in your vehicle, residence, or any other property that you are in control of, even if it is not found on your person.
• You are aware or have reason to believe that there are drugs in a location that you frequent, even if the drugs don’t belong to you.
• You meet the criteria specified in any of the previous bullet points, even though you didn’t buy, use or intend to use the substance in question.

Activity classified as illicit drug supply

Numerous activities can also be classified as illicit drug supply under Queensland law. It is important to note that you don’t have to give someone drugs in return for money (or anything else of value) to be charged with supplying drugs. All you have to do is give some drugs to someone else, or offer to do so without actually relinquishing anything.

Technically, supplying illicit drugs includes the following:

• Selling, dispensing, providing, distributing, or transporting drugs;
• consenting or volunteering to do any of those things;
• preparing to dispense, provide, distribute, sell, transport or supply drugs.

Penalties upon conviction for these activities depend on several factors. These include drug quantity, who receives it, and whether the supplier benefited (financially or otherwise).

Aggravating factors – circumstances that add to the severity of the crime and carry harsher penalties – generally include those in which the supplier:

• Is an adult who provides the drugs to a minor or an intellectually challenged individual;
• provides drugs to someone who is incarcerated, or in a school, university, etc.; or
• provides it to someone who is unaware of what it is.

Drug trafficking

A point of law that is often confusing to the general public is the difference between drug supply and drug trafficking. Hence the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

However, there is a difference and charges vary accordingly. The key difference between supplying drugs and drug trafficking is that the latter involves the ongoing supply so as to constitute a business. It is important to note not all business are profitable, therefore the lack of profits does not necessarily mean a person cannot be convicted of trafficking.

The provision of drugs in this context is often – but not always – coordinated through street gangs or similar criminal organisations. Individuals are subject to drug trafficking charges simply for buying drugs to sell to their mates.

You should also be aware that there are usually tougher sanctions upon conviction for trafficking because it is done for profit. For instance, trafficking in Schedule 1 drugs such as cocaine or heroin carries a maximum punishment of 25 years imprisonment.

Illegal drug production

In Queensland, it is not only illegal to provide and possess dangerous drugs, it is also illegal to cultivate and produce them.

Under applicable laws, cultivating illegal plants is broadly defined as any activity associated with their growth and care. This means that something as simple as watering one could be legally defined as cultivation, and you could be charged accordingly.

On the other hand, illegal drug production includes any activity associated with the manufacturing process. This includes but is not necessarily limited to preparation, assembly and/or packaging, or volunteering to assist with any aspects of the process.

You can be charged with a drug production offence no matter how limited or extensive your participation is. However, the extent of your participation, along with the number of drugs, generally determines your punishment.

Under Queensland law, you can also be charged with publishing or even having a formula for the production of an illegal or dangerous drug. If convicted, you face up to 25 years imprisonment for a Schedule 1 drug, or 20 years for a Schedule 2 drug.

Additional drug offences

In Queensland you can also be charged with a criminal offence if you are caught with drug paraphernalia or suspected drug paraphernalia. You can also be charged with a criminal offence if you allow a dwelling, building or property to be used for any purpose related to the use, sale, possession, distribution or production of drugs.

If you are facing any sort of dangerous drug charges, your freedom and your future are at stake. Contact us at Jones + Associates today on 07 3229 3166 to learn how we can help you.

by Jones + Associates

Driving While Suspended or Disqualified in Queensland: What You Need to Know

For Australians, the ability to drive legally is essential. A valid driving licence allows us to get to work and school, to get groceries, to get to the doctor, and to places of worship. In rural Queensland, the ability to drive without running afoul of the law provides a vital link between neighbours. But the bottom line is that driving is a privilege, not a right. This is why driving while your licence is suspended or disqualified is so serious. Here’s what you should know about these offences.

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. This means you can be punished if police catch you driving on a public road while your licence to operate a motor vehicle is suspended or expired. To be convicted of driving on a suspended licence, there must be sufficient proof that:

• you were driving a motor vehicle on a public road; and
• you did not hold a valid driver’s licence; and
• you did not hold a valid driver’s licence in Queensland because it was suspended.

If you are convicted, the extent of your punishment will depend on your specific circumstances, including any mitigating or aggravating factors.

Driving whilst disqualified in Queensland

Aside from sending someone to jail or prison, disqualification is one of the harshest punishments a Queensland judge or magistrate can impose for certain traffic offences. When someone’s licence is ‘disqualified’, it is confiscated and their driving privileges are revoked for a specified period. In such cases, they must apply for a new licence once that time has elapsed.

To be clear, you cannot drive once your driver’s licence is disqualified. One exception to this is if you qualify for and obtain a restricted driver’s licence (ie: for work-related purposes). If you don’t have one and the police catch you driving on a public road, they can charge you with driving whilst disqualify.

Again, the penalties that may be imposed upon conviction will depend on the specific circumstances of your case. Mitigating and aggravating factors will be considered.

Penalties for driving on a suspended licence and driving whilst disqualified

In Queensland, someone convicted of driving on a suspended licence faces the same penalties as someone convicted of driving without a valid licence. If this was your first offence, you could end up paying a $4,400 fine and spending up to a year in jail.

However, you should be aware that you may be able to avoid going to jail if you haven’t committed a similar offence within the last five years. This is because police have some discretion in these circumstances. Specifically, they can issue a maximum fine of $4,400 if they so choose.

On the other hand, Magistrates Courts, which usually hear these matters, don’t have any leeway regarding disqualifications. If you are found guilty of driving while your licence is suspended, your licence will be confiscated for a maximum of six months. It does not matter if you have received any other punishment in connection with the offence.

Because the offence is so serious, the penalties for driving whilst disqualified tend to be severe. At the very least, your driver’s licence will be confiscated for two to five years. You may also end up paying hefty fines and going to jail for up to 18 months.

You need experienced Queensland criminal lawyers to fight for you

If you have been charged with driving on a suspended licence or driving whilst disqualified in Queensland, you need a qualified lawyer on your side. Our Brisbane criminal law team can quickly assess your situation and devise an effective defence. Depending on your specific circumstances, we may argue that:

• you actually had  a valid licence at the time of the offence;
• you were not driving on a public road as defined by law at the time of the offence;
• you were suspended from driving on valid grounds and/or there is a dispute as to the validity of your  licence;
• you had to drive because you were being threatened with violence or you were otherwise under significant duress;
• you had to drive because of an extreme emergency (a matter of life and death) or a similar situation.

With your livelihood and your freedom at stake, there is no time to waste. Contact our criminal lawyers Brisbane to learn more about how we can help you today.

by Jones + Associates

Will a Conviction Be Recorded Against Me?

When a person is convicted of an offence, whether it is a serious or relatively minor offence, the effect on their life can be profound. Even after serving your sentence, paying your fines, and accepting the punishment imposed upon you by the court, you may continue to face the stigma that can be attached to those with a criminal record.

The effects of a criminal conviction

You may be asked to disclose your criminal history in everyday situations including: certain licence applications, job applications, rental agreements and blue card applications.  Often, having a criminal history can affect your eligibility for a job by colouring the opinion of the person reviewing your application. The legal system does allow individuals to keep their criminal history to themselves after a certain period of time has passed.

Spent convictions

‘Spent’ convictions are convictions which no longer have to be disclosed because enough time has lapsed since the conviction. The time that must pass in order for a conviction to be ‘spent’ will depend on the court in which the person was convicted.

Magistrates Court

If you were convicted in the Magistrates Court, you do not have to disclosure your conviction if:

• the conviction was five or more years ago;
• you did not serve a term of imprisonment, or your term of imprisonment was for 30 months or less;
• you have fulfilled all other court orders in relation to the sentence;
• you have not been convicted of another offence within the five years since your initial conviction; and
• no exceptions apply.

If all of these requirements are met, your conviction will be considered ‘spent’ and there will no longer be an obligation to disclose.

District or Supreme Court

Similarly, if you were convicted in the District or Supreme Court, you will no longer be required to disclose your conviction if:

• the conviction was 10 or more years ago;
• you did not serve a term of imprisonment, or your term of imprisonment was for 30 months or less;
• you have fulfilled all other court orders in relation to that sentence;
• you have not been convicted of another offence within the 10 years since your initial conviction; and
• no exceptions apply.

If all of these requirements are met, your conviction will be considered ‘spent’ and there will no longer be an obligation to disclose.

Exceptions

Even when all other criteria are met, you may still be required to disclose your criminal history if one of the many exceptions apply.

The exceptions listed in the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders Act) 1986 (Qld) are too numerous to list in this article however, it is important to note that people in certain positions have disclosure obligations that relate to the terms of their employment and their professional responsibilities. People employed within the Department of Education or the criminal justice system such as police and Justices of the Peace need to be especially aware of their obligations in this regard.

If you or someone you love has been convicted of a crime and needs advice as to their disclosure obligations, an experienced lawyer will be able to help you determine if any exceptions exist, so please contact our criminal lawyers Brisbane one as soon as possible.

by Jones + Associates

What Does Bail Mean and Will I Get It?

These days, it seems like every channel that you flip to on the television is some kind of cop show or procedural drama. Because of this, even the average lay-person can use terms like ‘parole’ and ‘bail’ in everyday conversation. However, that doesn’t signify that the meaning of these terms are clear. Despite inclusion in the common vernacular, the reality of bail may be a bit more significant than you might expect.

What is ‘bail’?

Bail is a pivotal aspect at the start of a person’s criminal defence. When awaiting trial, a defendant may apply for bail which, if the application is approved, will allow them to await trial while remaining free in the community. If the application for bail fails, the offender will need to remain in police custody until the trial. Bail is a written agreement, known as an undertaking, for the offender to show up for their trial at a specific date and time. Bail may also include additional considerations such as: reporting (to a police station, for example), residential conditions (not moving while on bail), and fines.

Watch-house bail: The most basic form of bail, watch-house bail, is granted when you are arrested and charged with an offence but you are allowed to remain at liberty within the community, provided that you sign a bail undertaking stating your agreement to appear before the court at a specific day and time.

Court bail: If you are denied watch-house bail, your alternative option is to apply to court to be granted bail. Once you sign the agreement, you will be released from custody and will be free to remain in the community until your agreed-upon court date and time. If your agreed-upon court date is then rescheduled, you will be required to sign an additional bail agreement or else you might be arrested.

Bail enlargements: Sometimes, a person who has been charged with an offence will be assigned multiple court dates. In this case, the person may want to apply for a ‘bail enlargement’ so that they can remain in the community until the later court date, rather than needing to apply for multiple bail agreements at each stage of the process.

What does the court consider when considering a bail application?

After a person applies for bail, the court must then decide whether or not to grant the application or deny it. There are a number of factors that the court must consider. The Bail Act 1980 (Qld) states that an application for bail will only be granted if custody is not necessary to ensure the safety of the applicant and the applicant is not considered an “unacceptable risk” of:

• failing to appear at the agreed upon date and time;
• failing to surrender into custody;
• committing an offence while released on bail;
• endangering the victim of the offence for which the applicant was charged;
• endangering any other person;
• interfering with the investigation, witnesses, or otherwise obstructing justice.

There are numerous other aspects of an individual’s circumstances that the court will consider, including (but by no means limited to):

• Personal matters: job, children, residence.
• Previous history with the criminal justice system, such as their criminal record. Also, have they missed court dates before?
• Risk of releasing back into the community: Are they likely to flee? Are they dangerous? Are they likely to commit further offences?
• The matter at hand: nature and severity of the offence charged; strength of the evidence against them; are they/someone they know able to provide surety/financial collateral if bail is breached?
• Any other issue the court deems relevant to the matter.

While bail is a beneficial mechanism for many individuals as they await trial, there is a great deal of rationale behind the court’s decision to either grant or deny bail. If you or a loved one have questions or concerns about what bail really means, or how you might apply for it, please contact an experienced Brisbane Criminal defence lawyers today at Jones + Associates. They will be your best resource as you attempt to navigate the criminal justice system.