Doyle's Guide 2018
Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors have again been featured as a First Tier Queensland Criminal Defence Firm in the 2018 Doyle’s Guide. The list, released on 20 July, can be accessed here.
Robertson O'Gorman's Terry O’Gorman has also been recognised as a preeminent Queensland Criminal Defence Lawyer by the 2018 Guide, one of only four lawyers to attain this ranking. Legal Director Dan Rogers and Senior Consultant Leigh Rollason were recognised as leading Queensland Criminal Defence Lawyers. This list can be accessed here.
The Doyle’s Guide is compiled by fellow criminal lawyers and barristers, and recognises the expertise of our firm’s criminal defence lawyers. Congratulations to Terry, Dan and Leigh for this achievement!
Doyles Guide: Leading Criminal Defence Lawyers 2017
Terry O’Gorman and Dan Rogers have been named as leading Australian Criminal Defence Lawyers by the 2017 Doyles Guide. This makes them two of only six Queensland lawyers to make the list.
Robertson O’Gorman is the only Brisbane based firm with two solicitors listed.
The Doyles guide recognises lawyers who excel in their field of expertise as identified by their peers. Congratulations to Terry and Dan for this achievement!
Doyles Guide: Leading Criminal Defence Firm 2017
Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors have again been featured in Doyle’s Guide as one of Queensland’s Leading Criminal Defence Firms in 2017. The list, released on the 3rd August, can be accessed here.
This list is compiled by fellow criminal lawyers and barristers, and recognises the expertise of our firm’s criminal defence lawyers, listing Robertson O’Gorman as a First Tier firm.
Congratulations also goes to Robertson O’Gorman’s Director, Terry O’Gorman, who was listed in the preeminent list of Queensland’s Leading Criminal Defence Lawyer’s in 2017. Legal Director Dan Rogers also featured as a leading criminal defence lawyer, with the list recommending consultant Leigh Rollason’s expertise as well. This list can be accessed here.
National Domestic Violence Bench Book: Stage 2 Released
Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors are a specialist firm practicing in domestic violence and criminal law. We appear for applicants and respondents in domestic violence proceedings.
Online comments about Judges
On 21 January 2016 Troy La Rue appeared in the New Plymouth District Court in New Zealand before Judge Allan Roberts to be sentenced for unpaid fines amounting to $6 244.00. Upon being sentenced to 300 hours of community service in substitution for payment of the fines Mr La Rue was presented with a printed page containing a comment he had made just over a week earlier on social media regarding the story about Judge Roberts’ retirement. After some prompting, Mr La Rue read aloud “LOL I hope the fuckers gone by Friday. Ha ha. Fucker, nah fuckin cunt his old face and saggy chin. Fuck off”. After confirming that the subject of the comment was indeed Judge Roberts, Mr La Rue apologised and acknowledged he had been caught out.
In this example the serendipitous appearance of Mr La Rue before Judge Roberts provided an opportunity for the comment, which was entirely unconnected to any proceedings, to be addressed. Such a comment can be classified as gratuitous nastiness and forms one end of the spectrum upon which on line comments about judicial officers may fall.
Towards the higher end of the spectrum is the example provided in the UK case of Daniel and Samuel Sledden. On 16 February 2016, these two brothers were each sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, wholly suspended for drug offences. Forty minutes later, 27 year old Daniel Sledden posted a status to Facebook expressing his disbelief at how lucky he was to have escaped a custody sentence that finished with an invitation to Judge Beverley Lunt to “go suck [his] dick”. Samuel Sledden, aged 22, comments on the remark shortly after they were posted reflected his brother’s response to receiving a suspended sentence, albeit in more sedate terms.
Upon becoming aware of the comments, Judge Lunt called the pair for review of their sentence and after a 10 day adjournment to consider the implications of the on line comments, during which bail was refused, the suspension was revoked and full time custody was ordered. During the adjournment, Judge Lunt considered whether the comments amounted to contempt, harassment or any other criminal offence – concluding they did not. Instead, the comments were used as evidence of the brothers’ lack of remorse and used as a factor in the redetermination of their sentence. Unlike the La Rue case, the comments in this matter were directly connected to the proceedings and were not only disrespectful towards the Judge, but could be perceived as mocking the process[1].
The lesson to be learnt from this is that on line comments about Judges can land you in a lot of trouble.
[1] See Privacy Law Bulletin Vol 14 no. 3 2017 “On line comments and contempt” by Leah Findlay University of NSW @ p46
Are Judges out of touch?
Last week, the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council launched their new website, “Judge for Yourself”. It is hoped that the tool will change the perception that judges are out of touch with the public. Legal Director, Dan Rogers is a member of the Sentencing Advisory Council and participated in the launch of the project.
Visitors to the site are invited to engage in three sentencing hearings and then decide the sentence they think is appropriate. The program has been endorsed by much of the legal community, including Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath.
“We have thousands of people sentenced every year, a very small percentage go on to appeal and an even smaller percentage of those are overturned,” Ms D’Ath said.
“So the majority of sentences are never challenged and are accepted by the victims, the offenders and the broader public.”
“But there is a misconception out there about whether some sentences are too harsh or too lenient.”
Former Supreme Court judge George Fryberg has also endorsed the program, acknowledging that “Too often the public is misled by inadequate descriptions of sentences, particularly in cases of violence.”
Council member Dan Rogers has pointed out that “Research has shown that when the community has all the facts, their sentences are slightly more lenient than judges.”
“The reality is the judges are not out of touch.”
Explore the resource here.
Robertson O’Gorman represents defendants at sentences to ensure the optimal outcome. Call us today on (07) 3034 0000.
Consorting Laws
With the coming into effect a week ago the new consorting provisions of the Serious Organised Crime legislation there were already signs of Police aggressively starting to implement the new Consorting laws.
It is an indictable offence for a person to consort with what is described as ‘recognised offenders’ after having been given an official warning by police with respect to each of those individuals.
A ‘recognised offender’ is a person aged 18 years or over who has a recorded conviction for an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of at least five years jail.
A person who ‘consorts’ with another person if they associate with the person in a way that involves seeking or accepting the other person’s company. For an act of consorting to be captured there needs to be an intentional seeking out of a personal or social relationship with another person.
There is a reverse onus defence whereby certain acts of consorting will be disregarded if they are reasonable such as those that are necessary for participation in civic life, for example, consorting with close family members or for the purpose of legitimate employment or generally obtaining education or health services.
The consorting offence replaces the anti-association offence of the Newman-Bleijie VLAD legislation era.
The consorting offence makes it a criminal offence for a person to associate with two other people who have previous convictions.
The official warning in relation to consorting can be given orally or in writing and must be given in relation to each convicted offender.
Warnings can be given pre-emptively, for example, the official warning can be issued by police without any consorting ever having occurred, but the person must then consort with those people on two occasions, post-receipt of the warning. Warnings can also be given retrospectively, for example, non-contemporaneously based on video footage.
There is no right of review for the issue of an official warning.
It is, therefore, important that anyone the subject of an official warning particularly in the first number of months of the new law being implemented by Queensland Police urgently obtain legal advice.
Magistrate Court Pleas of Guilty: The Devil is in the Detail
The vast majority of those charged with a criminal offence will have their matters resolved in the Magistrates Court.
Statistically, a great number of these people will plead guilty to the offences which they are charged with.
As a result of this, there can be a tendency in the Magistrates Court to favour expediency rather than presenting the case of a client in a balanced and well prepared fashion. What is imperative to remember is that the Magistrates Court is a dynamic jurisdiction and one which calls for significant preparation of matters which are proceeding to a plea of guilty.
This preparation can take many guises however will often involve the taking of a detailed personal statement from the client (with particular focus given to relevant factors at play at the time of offending). References should be not only obtained but carefully scrutinised to ensure that they add some meaningful value to the sentence proceedings. A well-tailored reference can, for example, give a greater insight into the person’s personal circumstances which could save the advocate themselves from having to submit on same. Whilst increasingly practitioners are being forced to make submissions on penalty in the Magistrates Court without reference to authority, it is also imperative that the research be done should the Magistrate take umbrage with your ultimate submissions on the appropriate sentence.
Essential to the preparation for a Magistrates Court plea is also consideration of the growing list of diversionary programs including police and Court drug diversion and the Queensland Integrated Court Referral (QICR) program. A well-developed knowledge of these referral programs will show that they are not solely directed at those who are marginalised in society but rather can have a wider remit and application, particularly for those who are motivated in addressing the underlying causes of their criminal behaviour.
Of course, all of this material needs to be bundled and condensed into a concise package. It is important to have all the information to hand should the Magistrate query any particular area. A failure to do so can result in the matter having to be needlessly adjourned or the Magistrate making a negative finding against your client.
Preparation is therefore key and the experienced Magistrate will be able to detect very quickly those who are lacking in this department.
Top tips for Magistrate Court plea preparation
- Know your client’s personal circumstances;
- Gather relevant and concise references from those who know your client best;
- Understand the factual basis on which your client will be sentenced on;
- Always have a valid authority up your sleeve for your sentencing submissions;
- Keep the submissions concise.
All of this comes as second nature to an experienced practitioner. Here at Robertson O’Gorman we have a combined 75+ years of experience in preparing such matters and are able to tailor a sentencing solution to meet your needs.
The proposed No body No parole law change
Civil Liberties lawyer Terry O’Gorman this week welcomed the recommendations of the Sofronoff Inquiry into Queensland Parole with the exception of the ‘no body no parole’ proposed change to parole laws.
Terry O’Gorman said that he particularly welcomed the proposal for the establishment of an independent Inspectorate of prisons.
Mr O’Gorman said that the independent Inspectorate would report to Parliament rather than secretly to the prisons’ Minister.
“The beauty of the independent Inspectorate is that it will hopefully end the ‘out of sight out of mind’ attitude to Queensland’s prisons”, Mr O’Gorman said.
Mr O’Gorman said that an independent Inspectorate of prisons will hopefully bring out in the open the unacceptable degree of sexual assault, overcrowding and often quite substandard conditions that prevail in Queensland’s jails.
However Mr O’Gorman expressed considerable reservation about the practicality of the ‘no body no parole’ proposed changes.
“While sympathising enormously with the surviving family of a murder victim, the reality is that the proposed ‘no body no parole’ law change is simplistic”, Mr O’Gorman said.
Mr O’Gorman said that if the ‘no body no parole’ law change had existed in the Northern Territory when Lindy Chamberlain was the victim of a miscarriage of justice when convicted of the murder of baby Azaria in 1980, she would have been kept in jail for the rest of her life thus compounding the miscarriage of justice that a Royal Commission eventually found that she was the victim of.
Mr O’Gorman said that there are also other circumstances where a body may not be able to be found even if there is cooperation by a prisoner.
“If the body has been buried at sea or buried and then the area has been inundated by flood there will be no possibility of the victim’s family getting the closure that they so deservedly need”, Mr O’Gorman said.
Mr O’Gorman said that if there was to be a change to the law that brought in a ‘no body no parole’ law change the extent to which a convicted murderer had cooperated with police should not be decided by the police but rather should be decided by the Supreme Court.
Rehabilitation Services for Prisoners & Queensland’s Parole Changes
Civil Liberties lawyer, Terry O’Gorman this week welcomed more rehabilitation services in Queensland prisons and the establishment of a single Statewide Parole Board as part of the State Government’s parole revamp.
Civil Liberties lawyer said that with the State’s prisons’ overcrowding at almost 120%, mental health and rehabilitation services risk being pushed further down the list of priorities for Queensland prisons as more and more money in the State’s prison budget risks being spent on more jails and more prison officers.
“Currently Wolston Correctional Centre has a capacity of 600 but has inmate numbers of 750, and that significant level of overcrowding is repeated in all prisons around the State”, Mr O’Gorman said.
Mr O’Gorman said that recidivism for prisoners in Queensland is above 60% and the sheer economics of the costs of this number of people repeatedly being returned to jail in Queensland needs to be confronted.
“More and more money is being spent on prisons which means less and less money for hospitals and schools”, Mr O’Gorman said.
Mr O’Gorman said that if any other State Government department had a 65% failure rate, it would be shut down.
Mr O’Gorman said that both the high rates of recidivism and overcrowding was significantly caused by too little money being available for jail programmes which prisoners have to undertake before being eligible for parole.
“Prison numbers are necessarily high because prisoners cannot get on to internal jail programmes until well into their sentence with some prisoners serving well beyond their parole eligibility date because of dwindling money being available for programmes”, Mr O’Gorman said.
Mr O’Gorman called for a further shake-up of the Prison and Parole System by the appointment of an Independent Prisons Inspectorate similar to that which operates in Western Australia and the UK.
“An Independent Prisons Inspectorate can report to Parliament and not to the Minister, and this opens up to public scrutiny inefficiencies and problems in both the Prison and Parole System”, Mr O’Gorman said.
“Not only will that result in bringing greater efficiencies to both the Prison Estate and the Parole Board and thereby save money but it would get rid of the ‘out of sight out of mind’ mentality which has characterised the Queensland Prison and Parole System for decades”, Mr O’Gorman said.