Navigating the Criminal Justice System in Caboolture: How a Criminal Lawyer Can Help

For individuals who find themselves entangled in the criminal justice system, the experience can be overwhelming, confusing and incredibly daunting. Navigating the complexities of the legal system alone can be an intimidating task, which is why seeking the assistance of a knowledgeable and experienced criminal lawyer in Caboolture is crucial.

Understanding the Legal Process

Many individuals who have never been involved in the criminal justice system may feel lost and uncertain about the legal process. A skilled criminal lawyer can provide much-needed clarity by explaining the legal procedures, the potential outcomes and the options available at each stage of the case. Doing so empowers their clients with the knowledge and understanding necessary to make informed decisions.

Building a Strong Defence

One of the most significant ways a criminal lawyer can help is by building a well-constructed defence for their clients. They have the expertise to investigate the circumstances of the alleged offence thoroughly, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and devise effective strategies to challenge the evidence presented against their clients. This proactive approach can greatly improve the likelihood of a favourable outcome for the accused.

Legal Representation and Advocacy

Having a criminal lawyer by your side during court proceedings can provide a sense of reassurance and support. A skilled lawyer can skillfully represent their clients in court, advocating on their behalf and presenting their case with professionalism and expertise. This level of representation is invaluable in ensuring that the client’s rights are protected and that they have a fair opportunity to present their side of the story.

Negotiating Plea Bargains and Sentencing

In cases where a plea bargain is being considered or during the sentencing phase, a criminal lawyer’s guidance is indispensable. They can negotiate with the prosecution to secure a favourable plea deal, potentially minimising the severity of the charges or the resulting penalties. A knowledgeable lawyer can also present compelling arguments to the court in favour of a more lenient sentencing, taking their client’s unique circumstances into account.

Providing Compassionate Support

Beyond the legal aspects, a criminal lawyer can offer compassionate support to their clients during what is undoubtedly a trying time. They listen to their clients’ concerns, provide guidance and offer a supportive presence, helping to alleviate some emotional and psychological burdens associated with facing criminal charges.

Enlisting the assistance of a skilled criminal lawyer in Caboolture is essential for individuals navigating the complexities of the criminal justice system. Their expertise, advocacy and support are invaluable assets that can make a significant difference in the outcome of a case and provide much-needed peace of mind to those who find themselves facing legal challenges.

Contact Sibley Lawyers if you need legal representation for a criminal charge.

Law Enforcement Conundrum

18th time Disqualified Driving offender avoids actual imprisonment

Today a 38 year old man avoided jail in the Magistrates Court in relation to the charge of drive whilst disqualified. We fought hard to keep him out of prison. This would otherwise not be significant, except for the fact he had a record 17 prior offences for disqualified driving. Spanning a traffic history of 12 pages and a criminal history of 9 pages, he had what could only be described as a shocking history that included several dangerous operations of a vehicle, evade police, driving under the influence and the like. He had sadly developed an addiction to drugs just after school, and spent most of his adult life in and out of jail. His life was hopeless and negative, and remained in a negative spiral for most of his adult life. Having been released from prison in August of 2023, he drove his vehicle again in May of 2024.

So what kept him out of jail? His history was fairly described as one of a recalcitrant dangerous driving offender who showed a flagrant disregard for the law. Each occasion he committed offences of driving whilst disqualified, he would put the community in danger, by driving dangerously, speeding or being under the influence of drugs. He would normally avoid arrest and wait until he was caught. I described his offending as ‘prison resistant’, in that terms of imprisonment were not deterring him. This latest offence less than a year since being released, whilst disqualified for life, would easily have sent him back to jail but for the time and care taken in placing all relevant matters before the Court.

What changed that allowed him to avoid imprisonment? After being released from prison in August 2023, he made significant efforts to turn his life around. The catalyst to this was his daughter being born whilst he was in prison, and missing out on her birth and development. He eschewed his previous life and drugs. He participated in drug rehabilitation and demonstrated a positive attitude to not reoffend. He had not committed any drug offences since and remained drug free. He went to mediation and had started meaningful contact with his child. He obtained and kept a job. He showed a strong work ethic and was well regarded. He seemingly had a bright future. As soon as he was charged with this offence, he contacted his parole officer. He was not breached.

The deterrence effect came from the birth of his daughter, kick starting rehabilitation. His regular contact with his daughter is the reason for his ongoing rehabilitation. The circumstances were also crucial, in that the driving was a momentary lapse in judgement, deciding to move a car a short distance from a street to a car park. He cooperated fully with Police and made admissions. Unlike his previous offences, there was no other danger associated with the driving, he was simply driving – and not very far. As such it was an example of the offence at the very lowest level. His history was the problem.

The cases support a cautious approach to imposing custody (see Low v McMonagle). Consistent with section 9 (2)(i) and (ii) of the Penalties and Sentences Act, it is clear that in sentencing an offender a court must have regard to the principles that: a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort; and a sentence that allows the offender to stay in the community is preferable…”.

Further section 78 (2) of the TORUM applies and states that in deciding what penalty to impose, the Court must consider:
a. all the circumstances of the case, including circumstances of aggravation or mitigation; and
b. the public interest; and
c. the person’s criminal history and traffic history; and
d. any information before it relating to the person’s medical history or the person’s mental or physical capacity, that the Court considers relevant; and
e. whether the offence was committed in association with the commission or attempted commission of another offence and, if so, the nature of the other offence;
f. and any other matters the Court considers relevant.

The learned Magistrate was persuaded that sending him to jail with actual custody would derail his rehabilitation and would likely cause more danger to the community. By taking him away from his daughter, jail would likely have the opposite effect to the desired specific deterrence. Instead he was given a wholly suspended term of imprisonment. It is a case where persuasive articulation of the sentencing principles has allowed a man to continue to learn from his mistakes and build his life away from jail.

Employment Law: The Right to Disconnect

The recent changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the ‘FW Act’) have introduced a new ‘right to disconnect’ for employees. The changes recognise the changing nature of employment, with more employees performing their roles remotely, and the line between an employees work and home life becoming increasingly blurred.

In short, the right to disconnect allows employees to refuse to monitor, read or respond to work related contact from their employer or third parties (such as clients or customers) outside their working hours, unless their refusal is unreasonable.

The term ‘contact’ will encompass modes of communication such as emails, text messages or phone calls. The term ‘working hours’ is not defined, but it is expected that the term encompasses not just an employee’s ordinary full time or part time hours (i.e. 38 hours per week for full time employees) but also any reasonable additional hours contemplated by an employment contract. What is ‘unreasonable’ will be assessed objectively.

This means consideration of factors such as:

– The urgency and timing of the contact: Can the employer wait until working hours to make the contact, or does it require an immediate response? What is the level of disruption of the contact? An email shortly after working hours are finished is more likely to be considered reasonable than a phone call.

– Nature of employer’s business: Does the industry that an employer operates in mean that out of hours contact is unavoidable or part of the requirements of the role?

– Pay and seniority of the employee: Contact made to a senior employee with a greater level of responsibility is more likely to be reasonable than contact made to a junior employee. Similarly, if being contactable outside of working hours is part of an employee’s remuneration, then this is more likely to be considered reasonable.

– Personal circumstances: What are the personal circumstances of the employee that may make the contact unreasonable? For instance, does the employee have caring or family responsibilities, or are there flexible working arrangements in place? Is the employer aware of any other personal circumstances that might make the contact unreasonable?

Important things to know:

– The changes apply to all national system employees, which includes the Commonwealth public sector.

– The changes do not apply to Queensland public service employees.

– The changes apply from 26 August 2024, however for small business employers/employees, the changes won’t come into effect until 24 August 2025.

– For employers, there may need to be a need to renegotiate the terms of an employee’s contract if out of contact hours are required as part of an employees role. This will reduce the risk of conflicts with employees about out of hours contact emerging in the future.

– The right to disconnect amounts to a “workplace right” for the purposes of the general protections regime in the FW Act. This means that if an employee exercises their right to disconnect, such as refusing to respond to an email outside of working hours, then the employee cannot take adverse action against that employee because they exercised that right. Adverse action might include disciplining, reprimanding or terminating an employee.

Navigating Family Disputes in Queensland: Mediation, Arbitration, and Divorce

Handling family law matters can be complex and emotionally taxing, but understanding the various resolution processes available in Queensland can significantly ease the journey. Mediation and arbitration provide alternative ways to address family disputes, while the process of obtaining a divorce is clearly defined under Australian law. This guide will walk you through these processes, offering insights into how they can help resolve family issues efficiently and effectively.

Family Law Mediation

Mediation is a voluntary and non-binding process that assists parties in reaching an agreement with the help of an independent mediator. The mediator’s role is to facilitate communication between the parties and guide them toward a mutually acceptable resolution, without making decisions themselves. Before the mediation session, the mediator might meet with each party individually to understand their perspectives and objectives. During the mediation, both parties discuss their issues in a structured environment, with the mediator helping to identify common ground and explore possible solutions.

If an agreement is reached during mediation, it is documented in a settlement agreement, which can then be formalised into a consent order by the Federal Circuit and Family Court if necessary for legal enforcement. Mediation offers several benefits, including confidentiality, which allows parties to discuss matters freely without public scrutiny. It also gives parties more control over the outcome, as they negotiate the terms themselves rather than having a decision imposed. Additionally, mediation is often more cost-effective and quicker than traditional court proceedings and can help preserve relationships, which is especially important when children are involved.

However, mediation does have its limitations. It is dependent on the willingness of both parties to engage in the process and negotiate in good faith. Furthermore, while mediation agreements can be made legally binding through consent orders, the mediation process itself does not enforce agreements.

Family Law Arbitration

Arbitration is a more formal process where an independent arbitrator makes a binding decision on disputed issues. This process is typically used when parties cannot resolve their disputes through mediation. In arbitration, parties select an arbitrator with expertise in family law, who will review the evidence and make a binding decision. Before the arbitration hearing, parties submit relevant documents and evidence to the arbitrator.

During the hearing, each party presents their case, including evidence and witness testimony. The arbitrator then issues a binding decision, known as an arbitral award, which resolves the dispute. Arbitration offers several advantages, such as providing a binding decision that is legally enforceable. Arbitrators are generally experts in family law, ensuring that decisions are informed and fair. Additionally, arbitration is conducted privately, keeping proceedings out of the public eye, and can be tailored to suit the needs and schedules of the parties involved.

Despite these benefits, arbitration also has limitations. It can be more expensive than mediation, particularly if complex evidence or expert witnesses are involved. The decision is imposed by the arbitrator, which means parties have less flexibility compared to the negotiated outcomes of mediation. Furthermore, there are limited grounds for appealing an arbitral award, making it difficult to challenge the decision once it is made.

Obtaining a Divorce in Queensland

The process of obtaining a divorce in Queensland is governed by the Family Law Act 1975 and involves several clear steps. To apply for a divorce, at least one party must meet the residency requirements, and the couple must have been separated for a minimum of 12 months. Additionally, the marriage must be legally valid.

The first step is to complete and file an Application for Divorce with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, providing evidence of separation and a marriage certificate. Once filed, the application must be served to the other party, who then has the opportunity to respond. If there are no disputes, a court hearing may not be necessary. However, if issues arise, a hearing will be scheduled where both parties present their cases.

If the court approves the application, a divorce order will be issued, becoming final one month and one day after the order is made, unless the court specifies otherwise. Following the divorce, parties may need to address additional matters such as property settlements, spousal maintenance, and arrangements for children. Property settlements must be applied for within 12 months of the divorce finalisation to ensure that financial matters are resolved appropriately.

Choosing the Right Process

When dealing with family disputes, the choice between mediation, arbitration, and traditional court proceedings depends on the specific circumstances of the case. Mediation is ideal for parties willing to negotiate and reach a mutual agreement. It is cost-effective and can help maintain relationships, which is particularly valuable when children are involved. On the other hand, arbitration is suitable for cases where parties need a binding resolution from an expert, especially if mediation has not been successful or if a more formal resolution is required. The process of obtaining a divorce is a necessary legal step for the formal dissolution of a marriage and should be managed with proper legal guidance to address all aspects, including property and children’s arrangements.

Navigating family law disputes in Queensland involves understanding and selecting the appropriate process to resolve issues effectively. Mediation and arbitration offer valuable alternatives to court proceedings, each with its own advantages and limitations. For divorce, a clear process ensures the legal dissolution of marriage while addressing related matters. Engaging with a family lawyer here at Sibley Lawyers can provide essential support and guidance, helping you navigate these processes and reach resolutions that best meet your needs and circumstances.

Taking on The State’s Oppressive Vaccine Mandates

Civil Liberties

In the matter of the Police v Jackson Elliott, it was alleged that our client had seriously assaulted a police officer. In fact what had happened, was that JE went to the aide of his mate on the streets of Brisbane one evening, who was being dealt with excessively by two police, screaming in pain due to the handcuffs.

All our client did was to gently place his hand on his friend to see if he was ok. He was then roughly shoved by an officer, who then repeatedly told him he’d be arrested and in cuffs, if he did not get back. Due to his concern for his friend’s welfare, our client refused. The worst he did was use bad language in public, an offence he was ultimately guilty of. None of that justified what happened next.

He was then shoved so hard that he fell backwards somersaulting and coming back to his feet. Presenting no threat, he was then sprayed with OC spray directly in the face. Clearly at this point, the officer intended to arrest him, and began to do so. However, he failed to provide him with his mandatory right to information, which required him to tell him he was under arrest, and the reason for the arrest (such as you are under arrest for public nuisance). This breach of his duties (leaving aside the excessive and unwarranted force) was fatal to the arrest, rendering it unlawful.

Blinded, and being assaulted by Police, JE defended himself ineffectively. He was entitled to do so, using reasonable force to escape the unlawful custody. He was then tasered, an oft used accoutrement by the police, which is supposed to be reserved for the most serious occasions. He was charged with serious assault police. Eventually another officer who came upon the scene as support, told him he was under arrest for assault police. Unfortunately that officer hadn’t even seen the incident. Following a trial spanning several days, it was found JE had no case to answer on the serious assault charges. Following our cross examination of the police officers, findings were made that the ‘arresting officer’ lacked credibility. This was the right outcome.

What our client had to say about the outcome:

I thought my life was over and career ruined before hiring Justin. I was under serious investigation by HR due to working in government. I was charged with assaulting three police officers and public nuisance. Ultimately, I was guilty of the public nuisance offence and chose not to appeal due to financial burden. However, Justin managed to have the 3 serious charges dismissed and I did not incur a penalty for the public nuisance offence. Justin worked very hard and achieved my desired outcome. I would definitely hire Justin again if need be. Thank-you Justin!

As former police, we are intimately aware of the duties of police. We are often struck by the frequency with which they don’t comply with their duties. We’ve had many clients acquitted in similar circumstances. Call us now if you have been charged with public nuisance, assault or obstruct police, or dealt with unfairly by the Police during your arrest.

Correctional Officer Acquitted After Lawful Restraint of a Prisoner

In 2018 the legal fight for our client, a Corrective Services Officer commenced. After having been stood down for eight months, he was charged with an assault alleged to have taken place in an interview room at one of the many Correctional facilities in Queensland. The alleged assault was said to be when our client restrained a prisoner, after being interviewed by Police.

Notwithstanding the evidence of the prisoner’s conduct from multiple witnesses, justifying the use of force to restrain the prisoner under the Corrective Services Act 2006, our client was charged and prosecuted. This was based upon a downward angle view of our client using a taught restraint technique, albeit in a way that was not exactly how it was shown at the academy. This followed the deleting of CCTV evidence showing several minutes of conduct leading up to the intervention by our client.

It would have justifiably appeared to our client that the investigation and subsequent prosecution over five days was unfair. Mr Sibley of our Firm advocated for our client, representing him at trial and on appeal. He was recently acquitted before Judge Farr of the District Court in Brisbane. His Honour’s reasons for Judgement are yet to be published. However, it remains clear that he should never have been prosecuted.

The Job of Police and Other Emergency Services – Exposure to Trauma

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-11/former-police-officer-receives-payout-over-trauma/12043156

The Importance of a Balanced and Comprehensive Investigation

Recently we were involved in defending a client facing allegations of assault said to have been perpetrated on his previous defacto.

Now we have conducted many investigations ourselves in the past, and of course, seen many investigations since then as a Defence Lawyer. It is easy for an investigator to lose sight of the fundamental aim to ensure that the truth is exposed, and to contribute faithfully in the evidence collection process to ensure that Justice occurs. It is easy for one party to say something, and although false, be prepared to swear a statement to that effect and even give evidence under oath about it. Frankly it happens far too often. In he said she said cases, it is critical that investigators keep an open mind, and not fall into the trap of choosing a side, and then closing their minds to other theories. We often hear the words, ‘that is not part of the prosecution case’, as a reason not to seek and provide relevant evidence. You can’t force an investigator to pursue the truth. Of course disclosure provisions should ensure that all material is handed over, even if it helps the defence more than the prosecution. But what happens when an opportunity exists to collect evidence, or interview witnesses who may provide a very different version to the complainant. Of course it is axiomatic that if the aim is to ensure the truth comes out, that evidence should be pursued and disclosed frankly. Sadly it doesn’t always happen – and we often see evidence like CCTV being disclosed only in part (allowing the rest to be deleted), or not even attempting to acquire CCTV in the first place.

In this recent example, a courageous junior officer took the important step of acquiring the complainant’s phone (with consent) and having it analysed. Many of their colleagues may not have done so, even though there must have been concerns in the officer’s mind about the veracity of the complainant’s story. The results were compelling, showing that the complainant was misleading the authorities to say the least. The evidence ensured that a trial did not ultimately take place, and a just outcome was found.