by Jones + AssociatesCoercive 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 + AssociatesThe 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 + AssociatesHow Do I Make Changes to a QLD Domestic Violence Order?
For the authorities, combating domestic violence in Brisbane Queensland is an ongoing challenge. Thousands of applications for domestic violence orders (DVOs) are initiated annually, and there are no signs the trend is changing. In fact, statistics provided by the Queensland Courts indicate:
- the number of new applications for DVOs lodged statewide in 2018-2019 stood at more than 25,800 (as of 30 April, 2019);
- the total number of new applications lodged statewide for all of 2017-2018 was 30,381;
- the total number of new applications lodged statewide for 2016-2017 was 32,072.
A closer look at the 2018-2019 data reveals that Queensland Courts have issued more than 41,200 DVOs as of April 30, 2019. Of those, more than 20,800 were protection orders. More than 14,500 were temporary protection orders. Only 5,861 were ‘vary protection’ orders.
Of significance here is that Queensland Courts only issue the latter order to people seeking changes to existing DVOs.
Who can request changes to a DVO?
Technically, anyone whose name appears on a DVO can request changes. It doesn’t matter if you are the aggrieved, respondent, applicant or a named person (such as a relative). Nor does it matter if the DVO is a temporary protection order or a protection order. As long as your name is on the order, you can ask a court to change it.
Having said that, if you are the aggrieved person (victim) you can also authorise someone else to request the changes on your behalf. Additionally, if you are a ‘named person’, you can only request changes to the portion(s) of the DVO that pertain directly to you.
When changes to a DVO can be requested
If you meet the criteria we just discussed and your circumstances have changed, you can apply for a variation of the order. This is so even if the police made the original application to the court.
Based on changes in your situation, you can request the following changes to an existing DVO:
- the addition or removal of conditions;
- the addition or removal of named people (e.g. children, other family members, and associates);
- an extension or reduction of the time the order is in effect.
If you are requesting the removal of stipulations which potentially lessen protection for the victim, be prepared to explain:
- specific changes in circumstances;
- how the victim and any named individuals will remain free from harm.
Remember, the safety, protection and well-being of people who fear or have been victims of domestic violence, including children, is paramount to police and the courts.
The magistrate will take your testimony and the police officer’s testimony into account before making a decision.
We are here to help
At Jones + Associates, Brisbane Domestic Violence Lawyers is dedicated to securing the best possible outcomes for our clients. If you need assistance with obtaining or changing a domestic violence order, we are here to help. Contact us at criminal lawyers Brisbane to learn more today.