For a very long time in Commonwealth legal systems, the legal profession has been regulated for the benefit of clients of lawyers and the public at large. Among other things, there has been a recognised public interest in protecting those liable to pay legal fees from overcharging by lawyers. One of those protections is and has been the legal requirement for a bill to be provided so that the client can seek advice on the fees and charges.
As a result, one of the many modern obligations that lawyers in English legal systems have to comply with in the course of legal practice is to provide clients and any other persons liable for their fees with proper bills before such persons can be liable for or sued for such fees.
Justice Thawley had ruled that there was a potential conflict of interest and the integrity of the judicial process and the due administration of justice required Ms Chrysanthou to be restrained. Furthermore, whilst Ms Chrysanthou had given evidence she did not recall any confidential information and that she no longer had emails received in connection with the meeting, Justice Thawley held that:
“However recollections are liable to being revived and there is nevertheless a risk of subconscious use of confidential information”
In December, American actor Jussie Smollett was found guilty by a jury of falsely reporting a hate crime against himself.
He claimed two racist Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats beat him up. It turned out he had paid two Nigerian brothers to stage the whole thing so that he could pretend to be a victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime.
Earlier this month, Smollett was sentenced to 150 days in Cook County jail, and 30 months of felony probation, as well as restitution of $120,106 and a $25,000 fine.
In Australia, a convicted person must ordinarily demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to get appeal bail. The position appears to be different in America.
Generally, indictable offences in Queensland are dealt with by the District or Supreme Courts, as they are usually serious offences. However, in some cases, indictable offences can or must be dealt with in the Magistrates Court.
The Criminal Code
Section 1 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) defines an “indictment” to mean a written charge preferred against an accused person in order to the person’s trial before some court other than justices exercising summary jurisdiction. A “summary conviction” is defined as summary conviction before a Magistrates Court.
Section 3 of the Criminal Code provides that offences are of 2 kinds, namely, criminal offences and regulatory offences. Criminal offences comprise crimes, misdemeanours and simple offences. Crimes and misdemeanours are indictable offences, which means that the offenders cannot, unless otherwise expressly stated, be prosecuted or convicted except upon indictment. A person guilty of a regulatory offence or a simple offence may be summarily convicted by a Magistrates Court.
Sections 1 and 3 of the Code make it clear that the indictable offences are to be dealt with in the District or Supreme Courts, unless the Code provides otherwise. In the District or Supreme Courts, a jury is ordinarily the trier of fact in a criminal trial. In contrast, a trial in the Magistrates Court is called a summary trial, and the presiding Magistrate is the sole trier of fact (ie, there is no jury). A matter dealt with summarily is dealt with in the Magistrates Court.
When indictable offences must or can be heard summarily
Chapter 58A of the Criminal Code (containing sections 552A-552BB inclusive) provides for when indictable offences must or can be heard summarily:
– Section 552A of the Criminal Code provides for a list of indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily on Prosecution election.
– Section 552B of the Criminal Code provides for a list of indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily, unless the defendant elects for a jury trial.
– Sections 552A, 552B and 552BA of the Criminal Code are all subject to section 552D, which provides that the Magistrates Court must abstain from hearing and determining a charge and must instead conduct a committal proceeding if it is an offence listed at Schedule 1C of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Court is of the view that the defendant may not be adequately punished on summary conviction after considering submissions, or if exceptional circumstances exist.
– Section 552H of the Criminal Code provides that the maximum period of imprisonment under section 552A, 552B or 552BA is three years, unless the court is constituted by a magistrate imposing a drug and alcohol treatment order, in which case the maximum penalty is four years imprisonment.
Indictable offences which Prosecution can elect for summary trial
The list of indictable offences that must be dealt with summarily on Prosecution election is contained at section 552A(1) of the Criminal Code.
The offences listed include the commission, counselling or procuring, attempt, or becoming an accessory after the fact of any of the following offences under the Criminal Code:
Section 141: Aiding persons to escape from lawful custody.
Section 142: Escaping from lawful custody.
Section 143: a person responsible for keeping someone in lawful custody permitting escape from lawful custody.
Section 205A: Contravening an order about information necessary to access information stored electronically.
Section 340: assaults committed with intent to commit a crime, or as part of an unlawful conspiracy in relation to any manufacture, trade, business, or occupation or committed against a police officer, a person performing a legal duty, a person aged over 60, or a person who relies on a guide, hearing or assistance dog, wheelchair or other remedial device.
Indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily unless defence elects jury trial
The indictable offences that must be dealt with summarily unless the defence elects for a jury trial are listed at Section 552B(1) of the Code.
The offences listed include the commission, counselling or procuring, attempt or becoming an accessory after the fact of any of the following offences under the Criminal Code:
A sexual offence without a circumstance of aggravation for which the defendant has pleaded guilty, the complainant is at least 14 years of age and the maximum sentence is more than three years.
Section 339: assault occasioning bodily harm which is not committed in company, without the use of a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument and not during the term of a community service order.
An offence involving an assault without a circumstance of aggravation and which is not of a sexual nature, and for which the maximum penalty is more than 3 years but not more than 7 years.
Section 60A: Participants in criminal organisation being knowingly present in public places.
Section 60B: Participants in criminal organisation entering prescribed places and attending prescribed events.
Section 76: Recruiting a person to become participant in criminal organisation.
Section 77B: Habitually consorting with recognised offenders.
Section 328A: Dangerous operation of a vehicle (with a circumstance of aggravation at Section 328A(2)).
359E Punishment of unlawful stalking if the maximum term of imprisonment for which the defendant is liable is not more than 5 years.
An offence against chapter 14 (Corrupt and improper practices at elections), division 2 (Legislative Assembly elections and referendums), if the maximum term of imprisonment for which the defendant is liable is more than 3 years.
An offence against chapter 22A (Prostitution), if the maximum term of imprisonment for which the defendant is liable is more than 3 years.
An offence against chapter 42A (Secret Commissions).
Indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily
Section 552BA(4) of the Code provides that ‘relevant offences’ must be heard and dealt with summarily.
Relevant offences are defined as indictable offences which either:
- 1. carry maximum sentences of three years or less; or
- 2. are an offence under part 6 of the Code, excluding an offence under Chapter 42A (secret commissions) or an ‘excluded offence’ listed at Section 552BB.
The list of excluded offences contained in the table of Section 552BB includes the following offences:
At about 1.00 am on Sunday 17 February 2019, police were patrolling in Rockhampton when they saw a car driving erratically and knocking over a street sign. They pulled the car over and found the driver was Douglas “call me Doug” Winning, a local solicitor.
What transpired was recorded on the officer’s body-worn cameras. All class, Winning was wearing only a pair of shorts. His vehicle had sustained damage on the bonnet where the sign had hit and there was damage to a front tyre. When asked that he had been drinking, Winning nominated the amount as “a bottle of rum”, explaining that he had had a sleep since finishing it. He was slurring his words. He twice said “You’re not going to pinch me”.
One of the officers said she was going to administer a roadside breath test. Winning was in the car holding his passport and $300 in cash, made up of six $50 notes. At the conclusion of the roadside breath test, Winning lifted his hands. He put his passport down on the seat beside him, and held up his right hand with the notes in it, saying: “Can’t pay my way out this, can I?”.
One police officer responded, “No. No, you definitely can’t pay your way out of this”. The other responded “No”.
After the officers’ responses, Winning folded the cash in his right hand and extended his right arm out of the car, and towards the officers, keeping it there for some time. He remained seated with his left hand on the steering wheel. He only withdrew the extended arm when he was told he was detained and to turn his car off.
Winning then said that “someone’s been threatening my daughter and that’s the only reason I’m drivin’”. He was a told that he was detained for the purpose of a further breath test which would be done at the police station.
In the course of police telling Winning that the car would be secured, Winning said, “You gonna let me go. You’re not gonna lock me up, are ya?”
As Winning was taken out of the vehicle, he told Senior Constable Parkin that he did not need to call him Mr Winning, but rather “call me Doug”. At that point, Winning still had the $300 cash in his hand. Then followed this exchange:
“Officer Parkin: Do you wanna put your cash in the car or do you wanna leave it on your possession?
Winning: I’ll leave it on my possession.
Officer Parkin: Ok. Alright.
Winning: You wa-, you wanna lazy quid?
Officer Parkin: No, no, no.
Winning: Give you a lazy quid
Officer Davies: No, no, no. Parkin: No, no, no. No, not at all. Come on, Winning, we’ll get you in the back of the car. Come on, sir, this way.”
Winning blew 0.191 per cent at the roadside breath test. Later, on the breath analysis machine at the police station, he recorded 0.146 per cent.
Winning was subsequently charged with drink driving and official corruption, arising out of his proffering $300 and asking if he could buy his way out of the situation, and asking whether the police wanted a lazy quid.
Winning was later interviewed by a Channel 9 journalist, and the interview, in which he claimed he was joking about bribing the officers and denied offering them money to withdraw any charges despite the police footage, was recorded on video.
Read full story: https://sterlinglawqld.com/winning-winner-douglas-dinner-loses-corruption-conviction-appeal/
Professor Peter Ridd’s appeal to the High Court over the termination of his employment by James Cook University (JCU) has today been dismissed.Peter Ridd loses High Court appeal — Sterling Law QLD
On 16 December 2015. Professor Ridd sent an email to a journalist suggesting that reports produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the ARC Centre of Excellence were unreliable. Professor Ridd stated in the email that those two organisations should “check their facts before they spin their story” and that if the organisations were asked about the issue, his “guess is that they will both wiggle and squirm because they actually know that these pictures are likely to be telling a misleading story – and they will smell a trap”.
JCU found that, in using the language he did in the relevant email, Professor Ridd’s conduct amounted to “Misconduct” as defined in the Enterprise Agreement in that he did not act in a collegial way, did not respect the right of others, did not display responsibility in respecting his colleagues’ reputations, in breach of the Code of Conduct (the First Finding).
On 29 April 2016, Professor Ridd was issued with a formal censure (the 2016 Censure) and was told that, “In future it is an expectation that in maintaining your right to make public comment in a professional capacity in an academic field in which you are recognised, it must be in a collegial manner that upholds the University and individuals (sic) respect” (the First Speech Direction).
On 1 August 2017 participated in an interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin where he again criticised the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the ARC Centre of Excellence.
On 2 May 2018, JCU terminated Professor Ridd’s employment for serious misconduct. The termination followed two prior censures, one on 29 April 2016, and one, described as the Final Censure, on 21 November 2017. The censures related to findings by JCU that Professor Ridd had engaged in misconduct contrary to the Code of Conduct in that he had not expressed a professional opinion in a manner consistent with his obligations under the Code of Conduct. This included by failing to act “in the collegial and academic spirit” but had denigrated a colleague (including by failing to treat a fellow staff member “with respect and courtesy”), the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies (ARC Centre of Excellence), and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), that he had denigrated the University in a manner inconsistent with his obligations under the Code of Conduct, and that he had breached directions to maintain confidentiality. JCU considered that Professor Ridd’s conduct subsequent to the Final Censure amounted to serious misconduct, demonstrating a pattern of conduct intentionally designed to damage the University’s reputation and destructive of the necessary trust and confidence for the continuation of the employment relationship.
Professor Ridd commenced the proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court on 20 November 2017.
Full story: https://sterlinglawqld.com/peter-ridd-loses-high-court-appeal
Limitation periods in the law impose time limits within which types of civil proceedings should ordinarily be commenced. In commercial litigation, statutes of limitations impose most of the limitation periods. In Queensland, the statute of limitations is the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.
Barring the remedy only
It is commonly thought that limitation periods prohibit a person from suing out of time, however this is inaccurate.
Limitation periods are not a mandatory prohibition on suing that bar the Court from having jurisdiction (power) to hear the claim. They instead provide a defence available for defendants when proceedings are brought out of time, which must be specifically pleaded to be upheld. Unless a plaintiff can show that an exception would overcome the limitation period hurdle, the defence, once pleaded, must defeat the parts of the claim brought out of time.
When the cause of action arises
Time starts to run for the purposes of the limitation period once the cause of action arises/accrues.
The cause of action ordinarily arises as soon as a plaintiff is entitled to sue. Usually, this means when the plaintiff has suffered actual loss, because the wrongful acts or omissions said to have caused the loss must have occurred before the loss was suffered. From that moment, the relevant limitation period starts to run.
Common limitation periods in Queensland
The Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) imposes the following limitation periods in Queensland:
· 6 years for an action founded on simple contract or quasi-contract or on tort where the damages claimed by the plaintiff do not consist of or include damages in respect of personal injury to any person
· 6 years to enforce an award or recognisance
· 6 years for an account or a specialty
· 12 years to enforce a judgment
· 2 years to recover a penalty or forfeiture, or a sum by way of a penalty or forfeiture
· 1 year for defamation actions
· 12 years to recover land
· 2 years for action for contribution under the Law Reform Act 1995 or 4 years after the limitation period for the principal action, whichever is the earliest.
In Brisbane City Council v Amos  HCA 27, the High Court unanimously held that where a cause of action is subject to two or more limitation periods, a Defendant is entitled to plead and rely on the shorter limitation period.
In some circumstances, the limitation period will be or can be extended.
Read full article here: https://sterlinglawqld.com/the-law-of-limitation-periods