DOCSLIB.ORG

Chief Magistrate's Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chief Magistrate's Notes Chief Magistrate’s Notes (CMN) A Evidence – Flight Abuse of process Evidence – Fresh Evidence Adjournment Evidence – Identification Age Evidence – Privilege Animals Evidence – Protected Witness Assault Evidence – Rules Apprehended Bias Evidence – Search B Evidence – Search – Emergent Bail Evidence – Search – Mobile phone Barbaro Evidence – Search – Reasonable suspicion Bias Evidence – Search – Vehicle Body Corporate Evidence – Similar Facts C Evidence – Telephone Child Protection Evidence – Victim Impact Statement Civil Evidence – Weissensteiner Confessions Executive Liability Complaints Exhibits Consciousness of guilt Extortion Contempt Extradition Convictions F Costs – Civil Fair Trading Costs – Domestic Violence Fisheries Act Costs – Justices Act Forfeiture Costs – Peace and Good Behaviour Act Fraud Cross-examination G D GBH Defence – Accident I Defence – Consent Intent Defence – Domestic Discipline Interpreter Defence – Emergency J Defence – Exercise of right of way or easement Joinder Defence – Honest Claim L Defence – Mistake Legal Practitioner Defence – Of a dwelling Liquor Defence – Provocation M Digital devices Media Disclosure Mental Health Dishonesty N Domestic Violence Domestic Violence – Necessary or desirable Natural Justice Domestic Violence – Retrospective No Case Drugs O E Obstruct Elections Voting P Evidence Parties Evidence – Admissions Peace and Good Behaviour Act Evidence – Circumstantial Peaceful Assembly Evidence - DNA Police Evidence – Experts Practice Practice – Justices Act Practice – Exhibits Page | 1 Practice – Procedural fairness Sentence – Record Conviction (s12 PSA) Prison Hardship Sentence – Rehab Protests Sentence – Restitution Public Nuisance Sentence – Riot R Sentence – Serious Assault Reasonable Diligence Sentence – Sexual Offences Restricted Computer Sentence – Stalking S Sentence – Suspended Sentence Section 16 Criminal Code Sentence – Totality Sentence – Aboriginals Sentence – Trespass Sentence – Admissions (AB) Sentence – Uncharged Conduct Sentence – AOBH Sentence – Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle Sentence – Burglary Sentence – VIS Sentence – Common Assault Sentence – Workplace Sentence – Commonwealth Sentence – Youth Sentence – Compensation Service Sentence – Co-operation Ships Sentence – Criminal History Stalking Sentence – Cumulative Strangulation Sentence – Dangerous Operation Sustainable Planning Act 2009 Sentence – Delay T Sentence – Deportation Traffic Sentence – Discretion Traffic – Disqualification of Licence Sentence – Disobeying the speed limit Traffic – Disqualified Driving Sentence – Disputed Facts Traffic – Driving under the influence Sentence – Domestic Violence Traffic – Driving without due care and attention Sentence – Drugs Traffic – Fail to give way Sentence – Each Charge Traffic – Fail to stop Sentence – Extra-Curial Punishment Traffic – Disobeying the speed limit Sentence – Family Considerations Traffic – Unlicensed Driving Sentence – FASD U Sentence – Fine Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle Sentence – Food Unlicensed building work Sentence – Fraud/Stealing W Sentence – Hardship Weapons Sentence – Imprisonment Wilful Damage Sentence – Land Clearing Wilful Exposure Sentence – Leaving a child under 12 unattended Workplace Sentence – Liquor Y Sentence – Maximum Penalty Youth Sentence – Mentally Impaired Sentence – Mentally Impaired – Verdins Sentence – Parity Sentence – Parole Sentence – Pin Codes Sentence – Plea of Guilty Sentence - Police Sentence – Presentence Custody Sentence – Probation Sentence – Record Conviction Page | 2 ABUSE OF PROCESS Abbott v Commissioner of Police [2016] QSC 95 42/16 Extradition: Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). See [39], [44] and [57] Hong Minh Nguyen trading as Mobile PC Doctor v 99/16 Test for abuse of process. See [19], [25] and [33] Sensis Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 304 ADJOURNMENT Laurent v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 160 29/15 Application for an adjournment was refused based upon the defendant’s ill health – natural justice AGE PM v Childrens Court of the Australian Capital - Whether a person born on 29 February 2000 was a Territory & Ors [2018] ACTSC 258 child or an adult on 28 February 2018 R v KAK [2020] QDC 244 80/20 Rebut the presumption that a person under the age of 14 years of age is not criminally responsible pursuant to s.29 Criminal Code 1899 ANIMALS Johnson v RSPCA Queensland [2016] QDC 185 70/16 Breach of duty of care (failing to take reasonable steps to provide appropriately) Jolley v Queensland Police [2018] QDC 12 17/18 Breach of duty of care (inappropriate handling / sexual acts) Flaherty v Petersen [2018] QDC 21 22/18 Breach of duty of care (failing to obtain veterinary treatment) Forbes v Copely [2018] QDC 171 71/18 Taking a protected animal (crocodile) Usherwood v Keegan & Ors [2020] QSC 263 63/20 Process to follow when making order to return seized animals ASSAULT Marshall v Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 79/15 Use more force than reasonably necessary. Reliance 261 on s 279 Criminal Code Act 1899 Taurino v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 322 109/15 Conviction: bodily harm Isitt v The Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 308 8/17 Intention to apply force JLK v Queensland Police Service [2018] QDC 128 56/18 Assault occasioning bodily harm (domestic violence offence) Harvey v Queensland Police Service & Director of 19/19 Attempted or threatened application of force Public Prosecutions (Queensland) [2019] QCA 5 HKY v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 218 13/20 Prosecution failed to prove that the assault of the complainant caused bodily harm. Definition of “bodily harm” APPREHENDED BIAS Gaudie v Local Court of NSW and Anor [2013] 16/15 Principles: application for disqualification NSWSC 1425 BAIL Barry v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 061 5/15 s 158A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 De Waal v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 26 21/16 Bail pending appeal Williams & Hughes, Re an Application for Bail 79/16 Guilty plea to serious offences – exceptional [2016] QDC 204 circumstances Chidgey v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 224 90/16 Breach of bail – medical certificate Ayling v Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 42 42/17 Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking Ackland v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) 61/17 Unacceptable risk – domestic violence offences [2017] QCA 75 Page | 3 Etienne v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 6 15/18 Failing to appear in accordance with undertaking / Showing cause Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Turner & 8/19 Whether there is a discretion to forfeit an Anor [2016] QSC 107 undertaking on a fail to appear. s31(1)of Bail Act 1980 Atwani v Commissioner of Police [2020] QSC 123 61/20 Terrorism offence. S15AA Crimes Act 1914 Sullivan v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 69/20 Breach of bail condition – fine 220 Re DNV [2020] QSC 276 79/20 Variation of conditions – jurisdiction of courts to excuse compliance with conditions BARBARO Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work 111/15 Whether Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 Building Industry Inspectorate; CFMEU v Fair applies to civil proceedings Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46 BIAS Berg v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2015] 83/15 Whether the primary judge was biased in QCA 196 determining fitness for trial Dawson v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 295 94/15 Whether magistrate was biased against appellant Rowley v Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 88 49/17 Whether magistrate was biased or partial – whether magistrate had communication with the prosecution BODY CORPORATE Body Corporate for Donnelly House CTS37465 v 25/15 Appointment of an administrator to implement the Shaw [2015] QDC 139 orders of an adjudicator CHILD PROTECTION Director of Child Protection Litigation v MCE & 41/20 Long-term Guardianship Order, s62 Child Protection Anor [2020] QChC 15 Act 1999 KP v Director of Child Protection Litigation Unit & 42/20 Delay, temporary custody order, exception to 3 Anor [2020] QChC 16 month rule CIVIL Hong Minh Nguyen trading as Mobile PC Doctor v 99/16 Costs Sensis Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 304 GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Limited a 6/17 Recovery actions by commercial agents, non- division of Silverchef Limited v Putohe [2016] compliance with rules relating to an originating QMC 21 process Aguilar & Anor v Egnalig [2017] QCA 175 98/17 Application to set aside a summary judgment YJ Pty Ltd & Ors v Huang’s Properties Pty Ltd 9/19 Whether the Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to [2018] QDC 240 order recovery and delivery of possession of premises where the tenancy has been determined by forfeiture CONFESSIONS Pora v The Queen [2015] UKPC 9 21/15 Confessions, reliability, neurological function Flaherty v Petersen [2018] QDC 21 22/18 Admissions, failure to warn COMPLAINTS Harrison v President of the Industrial Court of 91/16 Duplicitous complaints election, power to amend Queensland & Ors [2016] QCA 89 complaint, criminal pleading under the Justices Act 1886, purpose of particulars Page | 4 Prus-Butwilowicz v Winston [2016] QDC 232 93/16 Whether complainant authorised to swear complaint Critchley v Schlumberger Oilfield Australia Pty Ltd 18/17 Whether complaint discloses offence, amendment [2016] QDC 338 of complaint Goli (Commissioner of State Revenue) v 32/17 Whether complaint and summons defective where Thompson & Anor [2017] QDC 4 offence provisions repealed. Striking out charges that are sufficient at law Stancombe v Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 105/17 Power to amend 276 Williamson v ADG Engineers (Aust) Pty Ltd [2018] 85/18 Dismissal for non-appearance of complainant
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Suspended Sentence -- Banishment As Condition W
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 8 | Number 4 Article 19 6-1-1930 Criminal Law -- Suspended Sentence -- Banishment as Condition W. T. Covington Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation W. T. Covington Jr., Criminal Law -- Suspended Sentence -- Banishment as Condition, 8 N.C. L. Rev. 465 (1930). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol8/iss4/19 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS. Criminal Law-Suspended Sentence-Banishment as Condition The feme defendant, convicted in the Superior Court of violating the prohibition laws, was sentenced to two years imprisonment, capias to issue at the discretion of the solicitor, if at the end of sixty days the defendant was found within the state. The defendant left the state within the sixty days, but, four years after her conviction and two years after her return to the state, on a motion of the solicitor, while she awaited trial on another prohibition charge, the sentence was ordered under the previous judgment. Both the judgment' and the order 2 were affirmed on appeal. It is suggested in a Tennessee decisions that the suspended sen- tence having developed in England as an aid to substantial justice in lieu of criminal appeals, it is now properly employed only as an inci- dent of procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Substitute
    2012 SESSION SENATE SUBSTITUTE 12105312D 1 SENATE BILL NO. 111 2 FLOOR AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE 3 (Proposed by Senator Howell 4 on February 9, 2012) 5 (Patron Prior to Substitute±±Senator Howell) 6 A BILL to amend and reenact § 19.2-306 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by 7 adding a section numbered 19.2-303.6, relating to establishing Sanctions with Unified Rapid 8 Enforcement (SURE). 9 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 10 1. That § 19.2-306 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted and that the Code of 11 Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 19.2-303.6 as follows: 12 § 19.2-303.6. Sanctions with Unified Rapid Enforcement (SURE). 13 A. There is hereby created a program designated as Sanctions with Unified Rapid Enforcement 14 (SURE). SENATE 15 B. A person placed in the SURE program shall be frequently reviewed by the probation and parole 16 district office to ensure that the person has not violated any conditions of his suspended sentence. If a 17 probation officer has probable cause to believe that a person in the SURE program has violated any 18 condition of his suspension, he shall, without exception, under the provisions of § 53.1-149, immediately 19 arrest the defendant or cause him to be arrested by issuing a noncompliance statement. The defendant 20 shall not be admitted to bail. After being taken into custody, the defendant shall be brought before the 21 court within 48 hours, except that if the defendant is taken into custody on a Friday or the day before 22 an extended holiday, his hearing before the court shall be given precedence on the docket.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife and Criminal Law Workbook.Pdf
    TRAINING MODULE WILDLIFE AND CRIMINAL LAW Strengthening Legal Mechanisms to Combat Illicit Wildlife Trade Workbook PREFACE This workbook provides a broad and generic background to using criminal law as a mechanism to combat illicit and unsustainable wildlife trade, with prosecutors and the judiciary as the main audience. The challenge of such a task is the differences in legal systems and differences in domestic legislation between countries. The intention, and hope, is that trainers will use this workbook as a basis and framework to develop more comprehensive and country-specific training modules for the prosecution of wildlife offences. Such modules can serve as capacity building materials in a training workshop, or as part of a university course. With the above in mind, instructors and participants are encouraged throughout the workbook to provide country specific information, and to identify aspects that should be added or amended. This workbook is designed for use with a seminar presentation and interactive exercises available at: www.wildlex.org. Additional materials and resources are also available on that website, as well as a database of wildlife related legislation and case law. These materials were developed for IUCN by Phil Snijman and Lydia Slobodian, with the support of Lorélie Escot. The project is supported and implemented within the Polifund project “Combating poaching and illegal wildlife trade in Africa and Asia” implemented by GIZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). The Polifund combines the expertise and resources of five German ministries, international organisations and NGOs to combat poaching and the illegal trade in wildlife products (ivory and rhino-horn) in Africa and Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions
    Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions Updated February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41326 SUMMARY R41326 Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: February 22, 2019 The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Charles Doyle Exceptions Senior Specialist in American Public Law Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses. Congress has created three exceptions. Two are available in any case where the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another. The other, commonly referred to as the safety valve, is available, without the government’s approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful possession offenses that carry minimum sentences. Qualification for the substantial assistance exceptions is ordinarily only possible upon the motion of the government. In rare cases, the court may compel the government to file such a motion when the defendant can establish that the refusal to do so was based on constitutionally invalid considerations, or was in derogation of a plea bargain obligation or was the product of bad faith. Qualification for the safety valve exception requires a defendant to satisfy five criteria. His past criminal record must be minimal; he must not have been a leader, organizer, or supervisor in the commission of the offense; he must not have used violence in the commission of the offense, and the offense must not have resulted in serious injury; and prior to sentencing, he must tell the government all that he knows of the offense and any related misconduct.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 AUG 2015 COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRICAL the REGISTRY SYDNEY ELECTRONIC ENERGY INFORMATION POSTAL PLUMBING and ALLIED SERVICES UNION of AUSTRALIA Third Respondent
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA BRISBANE REGISTRY NOB 36 OF 2015 On Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia BETWEEN: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA First Appellant DIRECTOR AND: FAIR WORK BUILDING INDUSTRY INSPECTORATE First Respondent CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MINING AND ENERGY UNION FILED Second Respondent 12 AUG 2015 COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRICAL THE REGISTRY SYDNEY ELECTRONIC ENERGY INFORMATION POSTAL PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA Third Respondent SUBMISSIONS OF THE AMICI CURIAE Filed on behalf of the Amici Curiae by: Date of this document: 12 August 2015 Australian Government Solicitor File ref: 15082660 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT 2600 OX 5678 Canberra Telephone: 02 6253 7424 Lawyer's E-mail: [email protected] Facsimile: 02 6253 7384 17343093 . ' PART I FORM OF SUBMISSIONS 1. These submissions are in a form suitable for publication on the Internet. PART II ISSUES 2. The issues that arise on the appeal are: (a) whether the principles derived from NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 285 (NW Frozen Foods) and Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 41, 993 (Mobil Oil) remain good law, including as a consequence of the decision in Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R (2014) 253 CLR 58 (Barbaro); 10 (b) the proper role in a civil penalty hearing for submissions as to penalty (including joint submissions as to an agreed penalty), including whether there is a constraint on the making and consideration of submissions as to appropriate penalty amounts (including on an agreed basis), in light of the decision in Barbaro.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System
    A GUIDE TO MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A SYSTEMS GUIDE FOR FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS National Alliance on Mental Illness Department of Policy and Legal Affairs 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Helpline: 800-950-NAMI NAMI – Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System FOREWORD Tragically, jails and prisons are emerging as the "psychiatric hospitals" of the 1990s. A sample of 1400 NAMI families surveyed in 1991 revealed that 40 percent of family members with severe mental illness had been arrested one or more times. Other national studies reveal that approximately 8 percent of all jail and prison inmates suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. These statistics are a direct reflection of the failure of public mental health systems to provide appropriate care and treatment to individuals with severe mental illnesses. These horrifying statistics point directly to the need of NAMI families and consumers to develop greater familiarity with the workings of their local criminal justice systems. Key personnel in these systems, such as police officers, prosecutors, public defenders and jail employees may have limited knowledge about severe mental illness and the needs of those who suffer from these illnesses. Moreover, the procedures, terminology and practices which characterize the criminal justice system are likely to be bewildering for consumers and family members alike. This guide is intended to serve as an aid for those people thrust into interaction with local criminal justice systems. Since criminal procedures are complicated and often differ from state to state, readers are urged to consult the laws and procedures of their states and localities.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasons for Sentencing of the Honourable Judge WJ Cummings
    In the Provincial Court of Alberta Citation: R v Dockman, 2017 ABPC 310 Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and- Michael Louis Dockman Accused Reasons for Sentencing of the Honourable Judge W. J. Cummings Introduction [1] An owner/operator of a water treatment plant providing drinking water to a community of residential acreages is sentenced to fines in the global amount of $49,000 allocated on six counts after being found to have contravened various provisions of an Enforcement Order issued under the authority of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E - 12 as amended ("EPEA"). [2] The sentencing framework specific to environmental offences set out in R v Terroco Industries Limited, 2005 ABCA 141(CanLII), ("Terroco") is considered and applied. The principle of totality as it applies to sentences constituting fines in regulatory matters as set out in Alberta (Health Services) v Bhanji, 2017 ABCA 126 (CanLII), ("Bhanji'') is also considered. Convictions [3] This is the Court's sentencing following Michael Louis Dockman being found guilty (R v Dockman, 2017 ABPC 112) on six counts following contraventions of various provisions of an Enforcement Order issued under the authority of the EPEA under which he was operating a water treatment plant, (the "Waterworks System") servicing various residents occupying residential acreage properties in the Sharp Hill subdivision located in the vicinity of Airdrie, Alberta, (the "Sharp Hill residents"). All offences are characterized as regulatory, strict liability offences. Page2 [4] The Court may refer to Mr. Dockrnan by his surname for ease of reference in this sentencing and not out of disrespect.
    [Show full text]
  • Suspended Sentencing in Spain: Why Their Model Could Alleviate Some of America's Worst Federal Prison Issues
    Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs Volume 9 Issue 2 May 2021 Suspended Sentencing In Spain: Why Their Model Could Alleviate Some Of America's Worst Federal Prison Issues Ryan Lamon Follow this and additional works at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia Part of the International and Area Studies Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons ISSN: 2168-7951 Recommended Citation Ryan Lamon, Suspended Sentencing In Spain: Why Their Model Could Alleviate Some Of America's Worst Federal Prison Issues, 9 PENN. ST. J.L. & INT'L AFF. 228 (2021). Available at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol9/iss2/10 The Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs is a joint publication of Penn State’s School of Law and School of International Affairs. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 2021 VOLUME 9 NO. 2 SUSPENDED SENTENCING IN SPAIN: WHY THEIR MODEL COULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF AMERICA’S WORST FEDERAL PRISON ISSUES By Ryan C. Lamon* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 228 II. BACKGROUND OF SUSPENDED SENTENCING ......................... 229 A. What is Suspended Sentencing? ........................................ 229 B. Spain’s Criteria for Suspended Sentencing ...................... 231 C. What Kinds of Crimes Would be Suspended at the United States Federal Level Under the Model Used in Spain?..................................................................................... 233 D. The History of Suspended Sentencing in the United States at the Federal Level .................................................. 235 E. The History of Suspended Sentencing in Spain .............. 237 III. THE ARGUMENT FOR WHY SUSPENDED SENTENCING SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AUTOMATICALLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL FOR OFFENDER’S WHO QUALIFY ............... 239 A. Suspended Sentencing Has Worked in Spain .................
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reporting Guide for Journalists Court Reporting Guide for Journalists
    Court reporting guide for Journalists Court reporting guide for Journalists Court reporting guide for Journalists Published by Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council, June 2019 © Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council 2019 ISBN-13: 978-0-9871456-8-0 This guide is available for download from the Council’s website: www.sentencingcouncil.qld.gov.au This guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt this guide, as long as you attribute the work to the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council, Court reporting guide for Journalists. To view a copy of this licence, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Disclaimer: The content of this guide is for information only. If you have a legal problem, you should seek legal advice from a lawyer. The guide should not be relied upon as legal advice and if you have a specific legal problem, you should seek legal advice about your own particular circumstances. While all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this guide, no liability is assumed for any errors or omissions or any loss, damage or injury, financial or otherwise, suffered by any person acting or relying on information contained in or omitted from this publication. This guide reflects the law as at 30 June 2019. The Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council is established by section 198 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Its functions are detailed in section 199 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Further information: Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council GPO Box 2360, Brisbane Qld 4001 Tel: (07) 3738 9499 Email: [email protected] With thanks to Anne Stanford, Principal Information Officer, Queensland SDC, and Tony Keim, Queensland Law Society, for their contributions.
    [Show full text]
  • Failing to Surrender to Bail Bail Act 1976 (Section 6) ANNEX C ANNEX
    Breach Offences Guideline Consultation 71 Failing to Surrender to Bail Bail Act 1976 (section 6) ANNEX C ANNEX Triable either way Maximum: 12 months’ custody Crown Court, 3 months’ custody magistrates’ court Offence range: Discharge – 12 months’ custody 72 Breach Offences Guideline Consultation Failing to Surrender to Bail STEP ONE Determining the offence category The court should determine the offence category with reference only to the factors listed in the tables below. In order to determine the category the court should assess culpability and harm. Culpability A Deliberate attempt to evade or delay justice B Factors in categories A and C not present C Breach just short of reasonable excuse Harm The level of harm is determined by weighing up all the factors of the case to determine the harm that has been caused or was intended to be caused. Category 1 Failure to attend Crown Court hearing results in substantial delay and/or interference with the administration of justice Category 2 Failure to attend magistrates’ court hearing results in substantial delay and/or interference with the administration of justice* Category 3 Factors in categories 1 and 2 not present * In particularly serious cases where the failure to attend is in the magistrates’ court and the consequences of the delay have a severe impact on victims and witnesses the case should be committed to the Crown Court pursuant to s.6(6)a Bail Act 1976 and the Crown Court should sentence the case according to the range in Category A1. Breach Offences Guideline Consultation 73 STEP TWO Starting point and category range Having determined the category at step one, the court should use the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within the category range from the appropriate sentence table below.
    [Show full text]
  • The Penalties and Sentences (Serious Violent Offences) Amendment Bill 1997
    ELECTRONIC VERSION THE PENALTIES AND SENTENCES (SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL 1997 LEGISLATION BULLETIN NO 4/97 KAREN SAMPFORD QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY Publications and Resources Section BRISBANE March 1997 ISSN 1324-860X ISBN 0 7242 7350 1 This Legislation Bulletin was prepared to assist Members in their consideration of the Bill in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. It should not be considered as a complete guide to the legislation and does not constitute legal advice. The Bulletin reflects the legislation as introduced. The Queensland Legislation Annotations, prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, or the Bills Update, produced by the Table Office of the Queensland Parliament, should be consulted to determine whether the Bill has been enacted and if so, whether the legislation as enacted reflects amendments in Committee. Readers are also directed to the relevant Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the Queensland Parliament. © Queensland Parliamentary Library, 1997 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members of the Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the prior written permission of the Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland Parliamentary Library. Inquiries should be addressed to: Director, Publications & Resources, Queensland Parliamentary Library, Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane. Director: Ms Mary Seefried. (Tel:
    [Show full text]
  • Probation: a Needed Development in the Administration of the Suspended Sentence
    SMU Law Review Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 14 1947 Probation: A Needed Development in the Administration of the Suspended Sentence Wilton H. Fair Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Wilton H. Fair, Probation: A Needed Development in the Administration of the Suspended Sentence, 1 SW L.J. 137 (1947) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol1/iss1/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. 1947] PROBATION PROBATION: A NEEDED DEVELOPMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SUSPENDED SENTENCE U PON conviction of a criminal defendant three possible methods of disposition of the offender have been made avail- able to the courts by statutory provision in the majority of jurisdic- tions: (1) incarceration in an institution for a term prescribed by law; (2) discharge of the offender on recognizance without con- dition as to supervision-commonly referred to as a "suspended sentence"; and (3) discharge of the offender on recognizance with provision that he be under the supervision of a probation officer and follow certain conditions prescribed by the court passing sentence-frequently designated as "probation." The first of these methods is so generally understood as a result of traditional practice that no further clarification or observation is required. This article will attempt to deal briefly with the second and third procedures, pointing out the difference between them as well as their interdependence, and to suggest changes and additions to the existing Texas law with regard to suspended sentence and probation.
    [Show full text]