by Jones + AssociatesEnhancing 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 + AssociatesHuman 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 + AssociatesCocaine 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 + AssociatesFraud 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.
by Jones + AssociatesJones + Associates Take on High-Profile Matter Pro Bono
Jones Associates Recently Take on High-Profile Matter Pro Bono
Jones + Associates recently represented a young person in the Supreme Court of Queensland charged with Murdering 15 year old, Angus Beaumont.
After a five day trial sitting before a Judge but without a jury, our client was found guilty of Murder.
The circumstances of the matter and the outcome, that being the death of a young man, were nothing short of tragic. The unfortunate outcome, however regrettable, does not though necessarily mean that the actions of the defendants were unlawful and it was on this basis the trial was conducted.
It was after careful consideration of the evidence and the relevant circumstances that Jones + Associates agreed to take on the as part of their pro bono scheme. We believed the client and the case was deserving of the considerable time and effort it takes to conduct a Supreme Court trial of this nature.
Whilst disappointed with the ultimate result we would like to thank Mr Patrick McCafferty KC, Mr Andrew O’Brien and Ms Lauren Gamble of counsel who all acted pro bono and worked tirelessly to provide our client expert and excellent representation.
Whilst not always popular, we will never shy away from the pursuit of justice and to ensure those before the courts are provided an ability to present their cases fully and expertly.
Should you or those close to you require legal assistance you should contact Jones + Associates on (07) 3229 3166.
The full judgement is available for download here.
by Jones + AssociatesCourt of Appeal Success – Conviction Overturned
Court of Appeal Success – Conviction Overturned in Queensland
Last week, Jones + Associates were successful in the Queensland Court of Appeal, which overturned the conviction of a man who was convicted of four counts of rape and three counts of indecent treatment of a child.
Shortly after coming into the matter, and after his conviction, it became apparent that the appellant was seemingly suffering from cognitive issues. As such, Jones + Associates obtained multiple expert reports which demonstrated that the Appellant was suffering from a major neurocognitive disorder, which was likely to have been impacting him at the time of his trial.
Further evidence was obtained demonstrating the appellant’s mental state had been deteriorating prior to trial. There became a real question as to whether the Appellant was fit to stand trial at the relevant time.
In appeals concerning fitness for trial, it would a miscarriage of justice if an accused had gone to trial and been convicted when he may not have been fit to stand trial and provide proper instructions to lawyers.
It was conceded by the Crown that the new evidence demonstrated that the appellant may not have been fit to plead and stand trial. As such, there was a real and substantial question to be considered about the appellant’s fitness, and that a miscarriage of justice had been established.
In the circumstances, the Court order the appeal be allowed, the convictions be set aside, and a new trial be ordered.
Whilst disappointing and frustrating that the Appellant stood trial whilst unfit and subsequently spending significant time in custody awaiting appeal – the team at Jones + Associates are proud at playing a part in correcting the result and achieve a positive outcome for the client and his family.
Should you wish to discuss any appeal matters or matters that involve mental health issues, please do not hesitate to contact the criminal law team at Jones + Associates.
by Jones + AssociatesSexual offences and Suppression Laws
Sexual Offences and Suppression Laws in Queensland
As of the 3rd day of October 2023, the laws in Queensland have changed to now permit the reporting of the names of persons who are charged with sexual offences.
The amendments to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 mean that the names of persons accused of sexual offences are no longer automatically suppressed.
Previously, it was unlawful to publish a complainant’s identity. Notably, that has not changed as a result of the new amendments – that is a complainant’s identity still cannot be published.
It was also unlawful to publish a defendant’s identity but only before they were committed for trial or sentence by a Magistrate.
The new amendments now permit publication of a defendant unless a non-publication order is made pursuant to an application to the courts for suppression.
There has been widespread media coverage surrounding these amendments, with opinions varied as to the utility of such amendments, and the naming of persons who are charged with sexual offences from the outset of the matter.
One of the loudest opinions shared was from Bill Potts, an experienced and well-known defence solicitor. Mr Potts expressed his approval of the amendments, noting it would promote ‘openness’ and also that any risks of naming defendants would be mitigated by fair reporting.
Despite the amendments, identities of complainants in these matters continue to be automatically suppressed. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest these amendments are truly promoting an open justice system when no information can be published that would likely identify a complainant at any time.
A truly open system would be one in which either all or no parties to a matter are able to be identified and therefore all parties open to the same level of scrutiny. Again, despite assertions from ‘experts’ like Mr Potts and the attorney general, complainants identities are routinely revealed in all other types of criminal matters – making these amendments nothing like those described as, “putting Queensland in line with other states and territories”.
There is no openness or fairness in a system where one person can ‘hide’ behind a serious criminal complaint and afforded anonymity but the person accused (despite being assumed innocent) is subject to fierce public scrutiny often accompanied by media commentary from non-experts. The court of public opinion is real and an ability for only one side of a matter to be subject to criticism and scrutiny is highly prejudicial.
This week’s significant media coverage of this matter only serves to remind us how much interest surrounds these types of matters.
Case in point is the recent highly publicised rape allegation in Canberra between Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins. Both parties endured fierce scrutiny however it epitomised fairness as neither parties identities were hidden. After all, why should a person’s identity be permitted to be hidden when their allegations could see an accused sentenced to a significant jail term?
Importantly, prosecutions in that matter declined to proceed on the basis that the complainant’s mental health was suffering. That leads to the question of whether an accused (again deemed to be innocent) would be afforded the same sympathy?
Another issue the Queensland Government fails to address by way of these amendments, is the erosion of one of the foundational principles of our justice system, that being any defendant is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty.
One of the benefits of the previous anonymity provided to those accused of sexual offences, is the protection from premature and uninformed public denunciation and life and career reputational damage that often accompany allegations of this nature. There can be no argument that we as a community condemn offences of a sexual nature more than any other, which is precisely why extra care ought be taken when reporting a person’s identity before these most unsavoury of offences are ever proven against them.
Whilst the justice system should balance the interests of both the accused and the accuser, this is what is already achieved by complaints being investigated and then prosecuted. The purpose of initiating a prosecution should not be to have an accused ‘named and shamed’. If a person is found guilty of a sexual offence, the matters will inevitably be reported in the media and the deserved ‘justice’ and pubic shaming would be achieved and would then be appropriate.
At the time a person is charged, no Court has tested the allegations or evidence in order to determine whether a person is guilty, let alone whether there is even a case to establish whether a person could be found guilty. The very real and negative consequences the reporting of a person charged with a sexual offences heavily outweigh any “justice” brought to a victim and the community by naming them at such an early stage.
It is important to remember that before these amendments, accused persons were able to be named, but only after a Magistrate deemed there was a case to answer. Why was this not enough?
Many people will naturally hold no sympathy toward accused persons and may not therefore be concerned with amendments such as this. However, what if it were you that were falsely accused? What if it were your son? Or brother?
We at Jones + Associates are experts at handling delicate matters such as these with diligence best proved by our unblemished results assisting those accused of sexual offences. Should you or those close to you require assistance regarding sexual type matters or the fresh amendments, you should contact us at (07) 3229 3166.
by Jones + AssociatesJones & Associates Represent Man Charged with Alleged Importation of 560kg of Cocaine
Man Charged with Alleged Importation of 560kg of Cocaine From Queensland
Jones & Associates are acting for one of the three men from Queensland, Australia, who have been charged over the alleged importation of more than 500kg of cocaine to Western Australia by boat. According to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the men bought a boat in order to collect large plastic-wrapped packages of cocaine that were dropped into the water by a bulk carrier off the coast of Western Australia. The drugs were later seized at a house in Kalbarri.
The AFP said the bust came after a tip-off was passed on to authorities about a suspicious vessel. On August 9, AFP officers boarded a bulk carrier off the Fremantle coast after it was identified as a “vessel of interest”. Two days later, it raided a house in the small seaside town of Kalbarri, 480 kilometres north of Perth, and found the 560-kilogram stash of cocaine worth $224 million.
Officers also seized a boat, two cars and about $30,000 in cash. Later that same day, the AFP swooped on houses allegedly linked to the three men in the Queensland town of Toogoolawah, and the Brisbane suburbs of Taigum and Redcliffe. On Wednesday this week, authorities then executed a search warrant on a bulk carrier in Port Lincoln, South Australia, in relation to the operation.
Jones & Associates will be appearing for one of the accused in Perth next month.
by Jones + AssociatesConverse View of Youth Bail Laws
Converse View of Youth Bail Laws in Queensland
There has been continuing coverage in the media of the “communities view” for stricter bail laws for youth offenders. This is in response to what has been described as an increase in youths committing offences whilst on bail.
The youth crime bail laws in Queensland have been amended to reintroduce breach of bail as an offence capable of being committed by children. There has also been the introduction of an electronic monitoring device for children as young as 15 years of age. These amendments were all met with criticism from human rights advocates and those in the criminal defence space, saying these amendments are not going to solve the problem faced by parliament.
The effects of incarcerating more youths were felt in Western Australia, where an investigation revealed unsettling findings that three young detainees were subjected to unfair conditions whilst in custody. This included extended time in solitary confinement and unlawful lockdowns.
This issue will only continue to increase if youth bail laws harshen and more youths are to be remanded in custody.
There are consistent complaints by prisoners already in Queensland as to the overcrowding of correctional centres, and subjecting to youths to similar conditions in custody can only have debilitating effects on their risk of recidivism.
The approach to youth bail laws must be carefully considered and must be framed with a view of addressing offending behaviour and reducing recidivism into adult life, rather than focussing on punishment.
by Jones + AssociatesPre-Text Phone Calls
Pre-Text Phone Calls are a Common Methodology Used by Police in Sexual Offence Matters
Pre-text phone calls are a common methodology used by police in sexual offence matters. After receiving a complaint from a person, the police will give the complainant the opportunity to make a phone call to the accused person to discuss the accusations, with the hope of eliciting a confession from them.
This recorded conversation can then be given in evidence at an accused person’s trial, if they contain confessional statements. This can very easily jeopardise an accused person’s defence.
There is scope to make application to the Court for this evidence to be excluded if it meets any of the relevant criteria, being that the confession was not given voluntarily, or the evidence is unfair against the accused.
Our office will prepare an application of this nature on your behalf if there are grounds to have this evidence excluded.
It is important to remember that even exculpatory statements, being statements denying any wrongdoing, can be construed in different ways by juries and can often not assist in any defence.
If you have received a call which worries you, you should contact our office before returning the call or engaging any further with the person or police.
Further, if you have received a call of this nature and spoken with a person who has accused you of an offence, you should contact our office immediately for legal advice.