Caboolture Criminal Lawyer in Caboolture, Queensland | Criminal lawyer

Caboolture Criminal Lawyer

Locality: Caboolture, Queensland

Phone: +61 450 280 778

Address: 4/13 King Street Caboolture 4510 Caboolture, QLD, Australia

Website:

Likes: 115

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Criminal lawyer

25.01.2022 Possession of a drug. Your Rights. Your Defence. Your Lawyer. Can you be charged with possessing a drug if you dont own it? For a charge of possession to stick, the police need to prove you had knowledge and control. ... This question was answered in R v Todd, below is an illustration of how it works. Ben was hanging out with two of his mates at the Tavern, Jill on a Saturday afternoon. Jill was planning to go to a rave in the next couple of days and had bought a few pills for the occasion. Ben was wasnt all that into pills but was interested in how they work. Jill pulled one of the tablets out to show Ben, pointing out the stamp and what that meant. Just as Jill was explaining how she hoped it would last for a few hours two police officers walked into the bar. Thinking quickly Ben placed a napkin over the pills to hide it from the officers. Unfortunately one of the officers saw this not-so-smooth move and charged Ben with possession. When it first went to court Ben argued it was not his, so he could not be charged with possession. The magistrate disagreed and said there was: 1. knowledge; and 2. Control. Because he knew about the pill and had exercised control over it by trying hide it. In the appeal the court found that as Ben was trying to hide the drugs from the police, he was in trying to exclude everyone else from the drugs for even a fleeting period of time. A charge of possession can stick even when the defendant does not own the drugs. Protect your tomorrow, call today 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778. Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.

25.01.2022 I like nuggets. But not that much. Also, what exactly is her final form?

25.01.2022 The kind of Thank you I can drink!

24.01.2022 Probably not what they had in mind when they started dob in a dealer.

24.01.2022 This week we had a matter where the charges started out as serious assault and wilful damage. After negotiating with the police it was reduced to wilful damage and public nuisance with important facts agreed upon in the police case. Ultimately our client was fined with no conviction recorded. A result the client was very happy with. ... If you need assistance with the justice system, we are here to help! 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778

23.01.2022 Law Stories: R v Bryant [1984] 2 Qd R 545 Section 227 of the Queensland Criminal Code: Indecent acts. Indecent acts are acts done in public, in public view or with an intent to offend. What is considered as being indecent is a question for a magistrate or a jury.... However, some instances are clearly not indecent... like gifting wallaby balls. Yep, you read that right! Giving someone wallaby testicles has been considered by the courts. Below is summary of the case! A man (we will call him Dave, handed Woman (lets call her Clair) a jewellery box, about the size of a ring box, Clair was so excited! How could she not be! Eagerly she unwrapped the box and opened it. What she found was not the kind of jewels she had been hoping for. Inside the box was not a bracelet or diamond earrings but wallaby balls! Thats right, the testicles and scrotum of a wallaby. Clair, feeling rather offended and disgusted went to the police and filed a report. A short time later the police charged Dave with an indecent act. What does indecent mean when you have been charged with an indecent act? Well, not a gift of wallaby testicles... In that case, the first Judge directed the jury that indecent "anything that is unbecoming or offensive to common propriety". However, on appeal the judges decided it meant a bodily act involving moral turpitude or acting in a base or shameful manner. Whats the difference? Well, moral turpitude is a lot more serious than unbecoming or offensive. undoubtedly, presenting wallaby testicles in a jewellery box is unbecoming and offensive but is absolutely not deprived or wicked in character (definition on turpitude). If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the Boys in Blue... If you need to talk to a lawyer, 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778.

21.01.2022 What if drugs are found in your house that dont belong to you? The law presumes that if drugs are found in a house you occupy, you own the drugs. To fight the charge the person needs to show: 1. They were not the occupier of the property; or ... 2. Neither knew or had reason to suspect the drug was in or on that place. The below story looks at how a person argued they were to the occupier of the place the drugs were found. Penny and Michael were in an on and off relationship, for the most part when they were together they lived in Pennys house in Morayfield. After a particularity heated argument Penny told Michael to pack up his stuff and get out of her house. Michael packed up most of his gear and moved in with a mate at Logan. Two days later he went back to Pennys house to collect the rest of his stuff. Someone tipped off the police drugs would be found at Pennys house. The police executed a search warrant while Michael was packing up the last of his belongings. In one of the spare rooms (that had been Michaels room) the police found a few grams of Green Leafy Material that turned out to be marijuana. The police also found a few of his razors and X-Box games and other items of clothing and thought he was an occupier of the Morayfield house. The police charged Michael with possession. The Magistrate at first instance found that he was an occupier of the property because he had not completely moved out of the Morayfield property and was splitting his time between the house in Morayfield and the one owned by his friend in Logan. On appeal the judges decided that Micheal had ceased to be an occupier when he was told to leave by Penny and moved most of his property to Logan. Another judge also went on to state that his license (a legal word for permission) to live at the property was revoked so he could not have been an occupier of the property when the drugs were found. The result: Michael was not guilty of possessing the drugs. If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the Boys in Blue... Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.The basic facts of the above example were taken from Thow v Campbell [1997] 2 Qd R 324.

21.01.2022 Alarm to get up and get to work went off at 5:15 this morning, at work from 6:30 am now off to the Moreton Bay Regional Community Legal Service! They do such great work for the community! www.mbrcls.org.au

20.01.2022 For the charge of Possession under Drugs Misuse Act, the prosecution must prove the defendant has knowledge & control of the substance for there to be a possession. Below is an example of how this works: Mary had a massive house party a few weeks ago. One of the party goers, who was a friend of a friend bought a few sticks of weed to help everyone celebrate. During the party the friend put the weed in a cupboard for safe keeping until later. He mentioned this to Mary..., who reveling in the festivities took no real note of the information. One afternoon Mary was being questioned by the police, the officer asked if she had any drugs at her house and she replied yeah, there is some in the cupboard. The police asked if they could do a search of her home, Mary told them they must have a warrant. The police turned up with a warrant to do a search. Mary took the police right to the cupboard. Mary told the police that someone had put the weed there at the party, she had looked at it, indented to throw it away but totally forgot about it. Upon further questioning Mary said " I was going to clean out the cupboard and dump everything that was in it. The Magistrate at the first instance determined Mary had: 1. Knowledge (knew the weed was in the cupboard); and 2. Control (was intending to throw it out in the future). Because she knew of the drugs and was going to throw them out in the future she had possession of the drugs and was found guilty. On appeal the Justices disagreed and found that Mary had only formed an intention to control the drugs (throw them out) in the future. Knowledge of the drug and a future intention to do something with them does not amount to control, so there was no possession of the drugs. In the words of Justice Demack "But mere knowledge of its existence coupled with a future intention to exercise control is not enough." Mary was found not guilty of possessing the dangerous drugs! If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the Boys in Blue... If you need to talk to a lawyer, 5495 1900 or 0450 280 778. Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.

20.01.2022 The kind of 'Thank you' I can drink!

20.01.2022 This message made my day!

19.01.2022 And now I know which client to thank!!! Everyone at the office says a massive thank you!

19.01.2022 Funding for community legal centres is vital as it assists with access to justice and legal advice for people in our community.

19.01.2022 For a charge of 'Supply' dangerous drugs, there must be a genuine intention to supply the drugs. Wally the Weed Lover was chatting to a gentleman he did not know was an undercover police officer. They must have been really getting along because at one point Wally asked the sneaky under cover officer what are you after?, the undercover officer said he was after ‘a bag’, they then went on to discuss what part of the plant it would be (leaf, tip, bud), how much it would be s...old for and when Wally would have it, the case says 4pm, but let’s run with 4:20. We can assume that shortly after Wally told the police he can get the officer a bag of weed for $200.00 he was charged with supplying a dangerous drug. No surprises there. Wally was convicted of supplying a dangerous drug. The matter was appealed and the reason was it seems is that Wally argued he wasn’t really going to sell drugs to the officer, he was just joking. Yeah, just joking The court made some interesting remarks about how it is the persons’ intention to supply and the surrounding circumstances that a court will look at to determine if it is a genuine offer. They found there has to be a genuine intention, meaning the person must intend to supply and believe they can supply the drug. A person might be talking themselves up but not really mean to supply the drugs or be making a joke. If that was the case, there would be no genuine intention. For Mr Weed Lover, hashing out the type of weed, time it was to be sold and price to be paid made it pretty clear he had a genuine intention to sell the drug to the police officer. The result may have been different if it was just one little comment like ‘I could totally get you a tonne of weed totally free’, but that is not what Wally did. If you now know something you did not know before, don't forget to share with your friends! The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.

18.01.2022 Can you spot the things that the client gave away to strengthen the case against them?

17.01.2022 To the client who had this delivered to the office with no name. A massive Thank you!, made my day :)

17.01.2022 Today I looked after a client who had been charged with stealing as a servant. For that charge there is a presumption a conviction would be recorded. In this instance there was no conviction recorded. I received this SMS (posted with permission). Its messages like that which lift me up and make all the extra care and attention I put in worth while!

16.01.2022 Sharing those intimate photos of your current or ex partner without consent is now a crime. More information to come.

15.01.2022 An unpopular opinion. Before I start to piss people off, my heart goes out for the family and loved ones of Teresa Bradford who was murdered at the hand of her husband. It is a tragic turn of events, one which no changes to the law will ever be able to reverse. Now on to the part that will upset and incite the hate comments. ...Continue reading

14.01.2022 "As long as everything goes exactly the way I want it, I am totally flexible" - Thelma and Louise Pretty sure this didnt end as planned... http://m.caboolturenews.com.au//two-women-arreste/3125383/

13.01.2022 When a client sends me messages like this, it makes my day!

13.01.2022 We’d defend them.

12.01.2022 Facing court? Talk to a lawyer today 0450 280 778 or 5495 1900

12.01.2022 Thanks to the client that dropped this in! Always a wonderful and unexpected surprise!

11.01.2022 In Queensland there is a similar defence of Domestic Discipline. "It is only when the discipline transcends those constraints that it becomes abusive and ceases to be lawful correction." "Despite modern societys changing opinion about the morality of corporal punishment of children, the law of NSW still envisages the legitimate administration of physical discipline by an adult to a child, subject to certain constraints," he said. "It is only when the discipline transcends... those constraints that it becomes abusive and ceases to be lawful correction." http://www.smh.com.au//family-court-examines-the-line-betw

09.01.2022 You can be charged with Supplying dangerous drugs, to YOURSELF! The below is an example of how it works: Mary and Jane are good friends, occasionally they like to smoke a joint and chill out. One afternoon Mary had run out of her own personal stash so she sent a text to Jane asking if Jane could bring her a small amount for her own personal use. Mary said of course and they agreed to meet at Janes house at 4:20pm.... On her way to see Jane, Mary was pulled over by the police as he saw her go through a stop sign. The officer saw the small bag of weed on the seat. Because of this he then did a full search of the car and her mobile phone. Mary, wanting to be helpful gave the pass-code to the police, the officer saw the message from Jane. Mary was charged with Supplying a dangerous drug, but so was Jane! Why you may ask? Jane was not supplying anything to anyone! Well, the law has this provision called Parties to offences under Section 7 of the criminal code, think of it like the guilty by association section. The Queensland Supreme Court looked at if a person can be charged with supplying to themselves in R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310 and determined supply takes at least two people. This means that while Jane was not doing the supplying she was a party of the supply process which is how Jane can be charged with supplying drugs to herself! If you now know something you did not know before, dont forget to share with your friends! The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved. Decision can be found here: http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2000/QCA00-310.pdf

09.01.2022 #themoreyouknow

07.01.2022 For a charge of Supply dangerous drugs, there must be a genuine intention to supply the drugs. Wally the Weed Lover was chatting to a gentleman he did not know was an undercover police officer. They must have been really getting along because at one point Wally asked the sneaky under cover officer what are you after?, the undercover officer said he was after a bag, they then went on to discuss what part of the plant it would be (leaf, tip, bud), how much it would be s...old for and when Wally would have it, the case says 4pm, but lets run with 4:20. We can assume that shortly after Wally told the police he can get the officer a bag of weed for $200.00 he was charged with supplying a dangerous drug. No surprises there. Wally was convicted of supplying a dangerous drug. The matter was appealed and the reason was it seems is that Wally argued he wasnt really going to sell drugs to the officer, he was just joking. Yeah, just joking The court made some interesting remarks about how it is the persons intention to supply and the surrounding circumstances that a court will look at to determine if it is a genuine offer. They found there has to be a genuine intention, meaning the person must intend to supply and believe they can supply the drug. A person might be talking themselves up but not really mean to supply the drugs or be making a joke. If that was the case, there would be no genuine intention. For Mr Weed Lover, hashing out the type of weed, time it was to be sold and price to be paid made it pretty clear he had a genuine intention to sell the drug to the police officer. The result may have been different if it was just one little comment like I could totally get you a tonne of weed totally free, but that is not what Wally did. If you now know something you did not know before, dont forget to share with your friends! The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved.

06.01.2022 Now might be the time to #lawyerup Dont risk facing court because of bad advice. If you want to know your rights here a a few links: https://www.qld.gov.au/law/... http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au//Being-charged-with-an-of/ http://www.9news.com.au//argumentative-driver-avoids-breat

05.01.2022 An educational video on how to ensure your defence lawyer has no defence... https://au.news.yahoo.com//brisbane-s-entry-for-the-awar/

04.01.2022 Amendments to the Bail Act have made drastic changes to the bail laws in Queensland for domestic violence charges. The below is a summary of some of the charges: Presumption of bail being granted removed Police & Courts must consider additional bail conditions Introduction of tracking devices for successful bail applicants... Police to notify aggrieved and/or other parties of successful bail applications Delay of release where the application is appealed Need to show why they should be granted bail People who are charged with a domestic violence offence now how to justify why they should be granted bail. Effectively a person who charged is presumed to not be granted bail unless they can show cause as to why they should be. DV Order conditions on bail undertakings Should a defended be granted bail after allegedly committing a domestic violence offence the police or the court granting bail must consider whether or not conditions similar to those in a domestic violence order, such as not to approach a place of residence or workplace are to be included. Tracking devices For bail applications where domestic violence is alleged the police or the court must consider a special condition requiring the defendant to wear a tracking device whilst released on bail. Notification of parties A court or police officer must notify people at risk of domestic violence such as the complainant, family members of a deceased complainant or any person that can prove or the police believe are at risk from violence by the defendant of a successful bail application. This can be done via SMS, email or multimedia message. No release pending appeal Should the prosecutor or another interested party seek review of a successful bail application, the defendant can now be held in custody up to four full days. While the legislation is drafted as business days, it is conceivable that a bail application made on a Friday morning which is being appealed could see the defendant remain in custody up to as late as 4pm the following Wednesday. If you need assistance, contact James on 0450 280 778

03.01.2022 Today I had the privilege of assisting a lady who has worked so very hard to address the problems in her life that saw her before the courts. As lawyers we can do only so much to help, the hard part of making changes if often left in the hands of the client. When people make remarkable changes, its our job to help the court see all the work our clients are doing for themselves. ... Today, the court saw the change and handed down a result that took into account the effort she had made. Beyond getting a great result, it is wonderful to see people make positive changes in their life. Days like this make being a lawyer so rewarding. Everyone in the office wishes her continued success and a wonderful future!

02.01.2022 We need this bird in the office.

01.01.2022 We have all seen the cop shows where they say "you have the right to remain silent", every criminal lawyer will tell you not to talk to the police. Maybe, just maybe there is a reason for this. Take the below example: Tim was having a great night out, a few drinks and some good music with some mates. Randomly he noticed a guy wearing the same shirt as him but thought nothing of it. A few hours later things got heated when one of Tims friend started a fight. Everyone got inv...olved. There was no security or CCTV. A few hours later and the police have rocked up at Tims house asking to come in. They were nice enough, they seemed to understand it was all it bit of a misunderstanding. One of the officers asked him what colour shirt he was wearing earlier that night. Thinking it was not a serious question like "who did you hit?" or "Why did you hit him?", he told them about the blue shirt with the white light bulb printed on the front. Thats all the police needed to arrest Tim and take him to the watch-house. Tim was then charged with Grievous Bodily Harm. It turns out one of the people in the fight was king hit in the head, fell over and knocked all of his teeth out. A witness said the person who threw the punch was wearing a blue shirt with a white light bulb. Answering one simple, seemingly innocent answer has made fighting the charge a whole lot more difficult than had he just called his lawyer and refused to do an interview. If you learned something, please share it. You never know who might be about to talk with the Boys in Blue... Knowing more about the law means you can protect your rights, stay informed here https://goo.gl/CzKiqp The contents of page does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters especially where there are criminal charges involved. The above is a fictitious illustration of why giving an interview to the police is often a really bad idea.

01.01.2022 Wed defend them.

01.01.2022 Ill just leave this here....