Stealing and “Dishonest Application” : defining the difference in Queensland

The 1st July 1997 heralded the implementation of a number of amendments to the Queensland Criminal Code including some intriguing changes affecting the principal property offences of stealing (section 398) and dishonest application (section 408C). This article discusses the impact of the changes. It examines the extent of the amendments and then aims to delineate the ambit of each offence drawing on some of the more recent judgments in the area. It concludes that the offences are moving closer together while retaining many of the complexities of proof experienced in the past.

Criminal intent

The High Court recently heard submissions of counsel in Zaburoni v The Queen. This case concerns an appeal against conviction for transmitting a serious disease with intent under section 317(b) and (e) of the Queensland Criminal Code. It raises important issues about the meaning of intent and how intent can be proven in Queensland criminal offences. Since intent is an element of so many of the more serious crimes, it is surprising to see that the courts, both in England and Australia, continue to grapple with how best to define it. In murder, for example, the accused is potentially going to be locked up for a very long time, so it is essential that the courts and juries are very clear on what intent actually means, so that they can be confident in correctly finding that it was present on the facts of the case.

Zaburoni HIV case: The law can sometimes be an ass, but not in this case

Lana Nowakowski's opinion piece on the High Court decision in the Zaburoni HIV case attacks "Queensland's absurd necessity to prove intention on transmission" and argues that "changes to the law are long overdue". Both claims are wrong...

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment : criminal responsibility for established medical practice?

The law recognises the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment even if this will lead to death. Guardianship and other legislation also facilitates the making of decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment in certain circumstances. Despite this apparent endorsement that such decisions can be lawful, doubts have been raised in Queensland about whether decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment would contravene the criminal law, and particularly the duty imposed by the Criminal Code (Qld) to provide the “necessaries of life”. This article considers this tension in the law and examines various arguments that might allow for such decisions to be made lawfully. It ultimately concludes, however, that criminal responsibility may still arise and so reform is needed.

Drawing the line : the legal status and treatment of the 17-year-old accused in Queensland

Seventeen year olds who come into contact with the police in Queensland are classified as adults and are not afforded the protections available under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) (YJA). As with any other adult, their offences are dealt with under a raft of legislative provisions including the Criminal Code 1889 (Qld) (the Code), the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA) and the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (PSA). This article argues that this situation is unfair and contravenes international human rights agreements which Australia has ratified, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC). Article 1 of that Convention defines a child as a person under the age of 18. The youth offences legislation in Queensland only applies to those who have not yet turned 17. This article examines the effects of this anomaly in Queensland, focusing in particular on the pre-adjudication treatment of ‘17 year old adults’.

Art unions legislation in Queensland

In Queensland, the legislation governing the conduct of art unions such as bingo, raffles and lucky envelopes is the Art Unions Act 1992 (ΑAct≅). The Act is administered by the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation (ΑQOGR≅) which is part of the Queensland Treasury portfolio. The Act and other legislation such as the Criminal Code, Vagrants Gaming and Other Offences Act, generally makes it unlawful for a person to conduct art unions unless they are authorised to do so. The Art Unions Act allows Αeligible≅ nonprofit associations such as charities, schools, sporting and community groups to raise funds for their stated objects. Art unions were legalised in the early part of this century primarily to assist charities and other approved associations to raise funds for worthwhile causes. This principle is continued in the 1992 Act. The Queensland art union industry had a turnover of over$190M in 1996/97 and our Queensland art unions continue to attract not just sales from Queensland residents but also interstate and overseas buyers. Art unions continue to be an attractive form of fundraising for many nonprofit associations.

The use of headings and marginal notes in interpreting Queensland legislation : appearances can be deceptive

This article considers the rules relating to the use of marginal notes and headings in interpreting Queensland legislation, both in its original form and in reprinted legislation. It also examines the application of the principles of construction as to the use of section headings in the interpretation of provisions of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Finally, it suggests that amendments should be made to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) in order to clarify the position as to the status of marginal notes and headings in statutory interpretation.

Butterworths Questions and Answers : Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia

Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia is a new title in the Butterworths Questions and Answers (BQA) series, focusing on the criminal law in the main code states – Queensland and WA.

Principles of Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia

Aspires to engage students in the criminal law in Queensland and Western Australia by explaining and applying its fundamental principles. In both these jurisdictions the criminal law stems from the Griffith Code, which was enacted in 1899 in Queensland and in 1913 in Western Australia.

The Criminal Codes : Commentary and Materials

This edition has been substantially revised to increase overall clarity and to ensure a balanced examination of the criminal law in the 'Code' states, Queensland and Western Australia. The work has been brought up-to-date in all areas and provides valuable comment on the recent wide-reaching reforms to the law of homicide in Western Australia. Significant developments in both states discussed in this edition include: The abolition of wilful murder and infanticide, and the new definition of murder (WA); The introduction of the new offence of unlawful assault causing death (WA); The abolition of provocation to murder (WA), and whether this excuse still has a part to play (Qld); The reformulation of the excuse of self-defence, and the introduction of excessive self-defence (WA); The creation of offences for drink spiking (Qld and WA); and Current and proposed sentencing considerations (Qld and WA). Fundamental principles of the criminal law are illustrated throughout the book by selected extracts from the Codes and case law, while additional materials foster critical reflection on the law and the need for reform.

Criminal histories of crash and non-crash involved Queensland speeding offenders: Evidence supporting the idea that we drive as we live

Evidence increasingly suggests that our behaviour on the road mirrors our behaviour across other aspects of our life. The idea that we drive as we live, described by Tillman and Hobbs more than 65 years ago when examining off-road behaviours of taxi drivers (1949), is the focus of the current paper. As part of a larger study examining the impact of penalty changes on a large cohort of Queensland speeding offenders, criminal (lifetime) and crash history (10 year period) data for a sub-sample of 1000 offenders were obtained. Based on the ‘drive as we live’ maxim, it was hypothesised that crash-involved speeding offenders would be more likely to have a criminal history than non-crash involved offenders. Overall, only 30% of speeding offenders had a criminal history. However, crash-involved offenders were significantly more likely to have a criminal history (49.4%) than non-crash involved offenders (28.6%), supporting the hypothesis. Furthermore, those deemed ‘most at fault’ in a crash were the group most likely to have at least one criminal offence (52.2%). When compared to the non-crash involved offenders, those deemed ‘not most at fault’ in a crash were also more likely to have had at least one criminal offence (46.5%). Therefore, when compared to non-crash involved speeding offenders, those offenders involved in a crash were more likely to have been convicted of at least one criminal offence, irrespective of whether they were deemed ‘most at fault’ in that crash. Implications for traffic offender management and policing are discussed.