Offences Against Public Justice
Offences against public justice are serious crimes that can undermine the administration of justice and the public's trust in the legal system. These offences include a wide range of acts, such as perjury, contempt of court, interfering with witnesses, and perverting the course of justice.
If you have been charged with an offence against public justice, it is important to seek legal advice immediately. A conviction for these types of offences can have serious consequences on your life and reputation, including imprisonment, a criminal record, and difficulty finding employment.
Jackson John Defence Lawyers is a leading criminal defence law firm with extensive experience in defending clients charged with offences against public justice. We understand the seriousness of these charges and we will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests.
Contempt of Court
Contempt of court is any act that disrespects or interferes with the administration of justice. It can be committed inside or outside the courtroom, and by anyone, including lawyers, judges, witnesses, and the public. If you have been charged with contempt of court, contact our team at Jackson John Defence Lawyers for expert guidance on your best way forward.
What You Need to Know
The Law
Under section 24 of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) and section 199 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), contempt of court is a criminal offence which carries a maximum penalty of 28 days imprisonment and/or a fine of 20 penalty units. The Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and Part 55 of the Supreme Court Rules also gives all divisions of the Supreme Court the power to punish individuals for contempt of court.
Understanding Contempt of Court
Contempt of court is an act that could harm the Court's authority, performance, or dignity, or the authority of those who participate in court proceedings.
The following actions have been found to be contempt of court:
- Not following a court order, such as a suppression order or a non-publication order.
- Yelling and swearing at a magistrate for a long time.
- Filming witnesses in an attempt to scare them.
- Refusing to answer questions in court or avoiding them.
- Refusing to take an oath or affirmation in court.
- Refusing to leave the courtroom after being told to do so.
- Not following court orders, such as subpoenas to attend court or to produce evidence.
A contempt charge should only be used as a last resort to deal with people who are behaving badly in the courtroom. In the case of Keeley v Brooking, the Court stated that the charge of contempt of court should rarely be resorted to except in those exceptional cases where the conduct is such that “it cannot wait to be punished” because it is “urgent and imperative to act immediately” to preserve the integrity of a “trial in progress or about to start.”
All other options should be tried before a formal charge is brought.
These options include:
- Giving a warning.
- Telling the person to leave the courtroom.
- Giving the person a chance to get legal advice, such as advice about the right against self-incrimination when they are asked questions on the witness stand.
- Applying a “cooling off” period followed by the opportunity for an apology.
- Thinking about whether to tell the Attorney General about the matter so that they can consider charging the person with disrespectful behaviour in court.
What Must be Proven?
To convict someone of contempt of court, the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
- The accused engaged in conduct with the tendency to interfere with or undermine the authority, performance, or dignity of the court; and
- The accused intended to do so.
In other words, the Prosecution must prove that the accused’s conduct was likely to harm the Court's ability to function properly, and that the accused meant to do so.
Importantly, the Prosecution does not need to prove that the accused actually interfered with the Court, or that they intended to interfere with the administration of justice in a specific way. It is sufficient to prove that the accused intended to do an act, which, in the eyes of a reasonable person, had the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. This is known as an objective test, meaning that the accused’s subjective reasons for their conduct are not relevant.
What are the Different Types of Penalties?
The maximum penalty for contempt of court is 28 days imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 20 penalty units. Each penalty unit is $110. This offence includes a wide spectrum of offending conduct. As such, the type of penalties vary greatly. The Court may consider sentencing you to one or more of the following:
Section 10 Bond
There are three types of section 10 penalties, including:
- Section 10(1)(a);
- Section 10(1)(c); or
- Section 10A.
A section 10(1)(a) bond is a finding of guilt, but the Court does not record a conviction. A bond such as this is usually only given where you have a clear criminal and/or driving record, your offending behaviour is minor, there is little chance of you offending again, and there were mitigating factors that led to the offending. Even if these facts apply to your case, there is no guarantee you will get this type of penalty. However, cogent subjective material and robust submissions on your behalf can be very persuasive to the Court.
A section 10(1)(c) bond involves a finding of guilt, a conviction is recorded, and you can be referred to an intervention program.
A section 10A penalty involves a finding of guilt and a conviction is recorded, but no further action is taken.
Fine
A court-issued fine is a financial penalty imposed by a court due to a legal violation or offence. It requires the individual found guilty to pay a specific amount of money to the government or a designated authority. Court-issued fines are used to deter unlawful behaviour and may vary in amount depending on the nature and severity of the offence. Failure to pay the fine can result in further legal actions, such as additional penalties or even imprisonment in some cases.
Conditional Release Order (CRO)
A CRO is a sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. The Court can decide whether or not to record a conviction. The maximum term of the CRO is two years and may involve conditions such as to be not consume alcohol for the period of the bond. If you breach a CRO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Community Correction Order (CCO)
A CCO is another type of sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. It typically involves more onerous conditions than a CRO and you will receive a conviction. If you breach a CCO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Intensive Correction Order (ICO)
If the Court is satisfied that imprisonment is warranted, it can order that you serve the term of imprisonment in the community while subject to the supervision of Community Corrections and conditions such as community service, curfew, or rehabilitation. If you breach an ICO, the Parole Board will determine whether to order you serve the remainder of the period in full-time custody. This is because an ICO is a sentence of imprisonment ordered to be served in the community.
Imprisonment
This offence carries maximum penalty of 28 days imprisonment, depending on the factual circumstances of the offending. However, full-time imprisonment is only reserved for the most serious matters.
What are the Possible Defences?
The most common defences to offences include:
Self-Defence
The law states that:
- A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
- A person carries out conduct in self-defence if, and only if, the person believes the conduct is necessary:
- to defend himself or herself or another person, or
- to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
- to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
- to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass, and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
Once self-defence is raised, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting in self-defence. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Duress
Duress involves circumstances where you have been forced to commit a crime against your will, whether it be by way of threat, intimidation, or some other form of coercion. The threat must be so serious that it would have caused an ordinary person of like firmness in your situation to act in the same way. Furthermore, the threat must be the operative cause of your actions. In other words, if you are not worried about the threat at the time of the commission of the offence, or some other factor influences your decision to commit the crime, duress may not be established. Finally, the threat must be continuing. What this means is that if there is an opportunity at some point for you to obviate the threat, by reporting it to the police for example, duress may not be accepted.
Once duress is raised, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative duress beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting in duress. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Necessity
For necessity to be established, the following must exist at the time of the commission of the offence:
- You acted only to avoid serious, irreversible consequences to yourself or someone you were obligated to protect;
- You honestly and reasonably believed that you were in a situation of immediate peril; and
- Your actions were reasonable and proportionate to the situation.
As is the case with self-defence, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative necessity beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting out of necessity. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Why Jackson John Defence Lawyers?
Our team at Jackson John Defence Lawyers has extensive experience in defending clients charged with contempt of court. We understand the serious consequences that a conviction can have on your life and reputation, and we will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests.
If you have been charged with contempt of court, do not hesitate to contact Jackson John Defence Lawyers today. We will provide you with the expert legal representation you need to protect your rights and interests.
Perjury
When giving evidence before a Court, you are required to swear an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. The offence of perjury is when you make a false statement whilst being subject to this oath or affirmation. If you have been charged with perjury, contact our team at Jackson John Defence Lawyers for expert guidance on your best way forward.
What You Need to Know
The Law
Under section 327 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), any person who in or in connection with any judicial proceeding makes any false statement on oath or affirmation concerning any matter which is material to the proceeding, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true, is guilty of perjury.
Some examples of conduct that may amount to perjury include:
- Falsely stating that another person committed a crime;
- Providing a false alibi; or
- Swearing a false affidavit used in connection with proceedings.
What Must Be Proven?
To convict someone of perjury, the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
- You made a statement under oath or affirmation;
- The statement is in, or in connection with, judicial proceedings;
- The statement concerns a matter that is material to the proceedings;
- The statement is false; and
- You know the statement is false, or you do not believe it is true.
Under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a ‘judicial proceeding’ refers to a proceeding in which a judicial tribunal can take evidence under oath or affirmation. The determination of if a statement is considered ‘material to the proceedings’ is a question of law to be determined by the Court.
What are the Different Types of Penalties?
There are various different types of penalties that the Court can impose, which include:
Section 10 Bond
There are three types of section 10 penalties, including:
- Section 10(1)(a);
- Section 10(1)(c); or
- Section 10A.
A section 10(1)(a) bond is a finding of guilt, but the Court does not record a conviction. A bond such as this is usually only given where you have a clear criminal and/or driving record, your offending behaviour is minor, there is little chance of you offending again, and there were mitigating factors that led to the offending. Even if these facts apply to your case, there is no guarantee you will get this type of penalty. However, cogent subjective material and robust submissions on your behalf can be very persuasive to the Court.
A section 10(1)(c) bond involves a finding of guilt, a conviction is recorded, and you can be referred to an intervention program.
A section 10A penalty involves a finding of guilt and a conviction is recorded, but no further action is taken.
Fine
A court-issued fine is a financial penalty imposed by a court due to a legal violation or offence. It requires the individual found guilty to pay a specific amount of money to the government or a designated authority. Court-issued fines are used to deter unlawful behaviour and may vary in amount depending on the nature and severity of the offence. Failure to pay the fine can result in further legal actions, such as additional penalties or even imprisonment in some cases.
Conditional Release Order (CRO)
A CRO is a sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. The Court can decide whether or not to record a conviction. The maximum term of the CRO is two years and may involve conditions such as to be not consume alcohol for the period of the bond. If you breach a CRO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Community Correction Order (CCO)
A CCO is another type of sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. It typically involves more onerous conditions than a CRO and you will receive a conviction. If you breach a CCO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Intensive Correction Order (ICO)
If the Court is satisfied that imprisonment is warranted, it can order that you serve the term of imprisonment in the community while subject to the supervision of Community Corrections and conditions such as community service, curfew, or rehabilitation. If you breach an ICO, the Parole Board will determine whether to order you serve the remainder of the period in full-time custody. This is because an ICO is a sentence of imprisonment ordered to be served in the community.
Imprisonment
This offence carries maximum penalty of ten (10) years imprisonment, depending on the factual circumstances of the offending. However, full-time imprisonment is only reserved for the most serious matters.
What are the Possible Defences?
The most common defences to offences include:
Duress
Duress involves circumstances where you have been forced to commit a crime against your will, whether it be by way of threat, intimidation, or some other form of coercion. The threat must be so serious that it would have caused an ordinary person of like firmness in your situation to act in the same way. Furthermore, the threat must be the operative cause of your actions. In other words, if you are not worried about the threat at the time of the commission of the offence, or some other factor influences your decision to commit the crime, duress may not be established. Finally, the threat must be continuing. What this means is that if there is an opportunity at some point for you to obviate the threat, by reporting it to the police for example, duress may not be accepted.
Once duress is raised, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative duress beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting in duress. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Duress
Duress involves circumstances where you have been forced to commit a crime against your will, whether it be by way of threat, intimidation, or some other form of coercion. The threat must be so serious that it would have caused an ordinary person of like firmness in your situation to act in the same way. Furthermore, the threat must be the operative cause of your actions. In other words, if you are not worried about the threat at the time of the commission of the offence, or some other factor influences your decision to commit the crime, duress may not be established. Finally, the threat must be continuing. What this means is that if there is an opportunity at some point for you to obviate the threat, by reporting it to the police for example, duress may not be accepted.
Once duress is raised, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative duress beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting in duress. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Necessity
For necessity to be established, the following must exist at the time of the commission of the offence:
- You acted only to avoid serious, irreversible consequences to yourself or someone you were obligated to protect;
- You honestly and reasonably believed that you were in a situation of immediate peril; and
- Your actions were reasonable and proportionate to the situation.
As is the case with self-defence, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative necessity beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting out of necessity. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Why Jackson John Defence Lawyers?
We understand the serious consequences that a conviction for perjury can have on your life and reputation. We will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests, and to develop a strong defence strategy. We will also keep you informed of your options and advise you on the best course of action throughout the legal process.
Our team at Jackson John Defence Lawyers have a proven track record of success in defending clients charged with perjury. We are committed to providing our clients with the highest quality legal representation, and we will fight to get you the best possible outcome in your case.
If you have been charged with perjury, contact Jackson John Defence Lawyers today for a free 15-minute initial consultation.
Influencing Witnesses or Jurors
Influencing witnesses or jurors is a serious crime that can undermine the integrity of the legal system. It is illegal to attempt to influence a witness or juror in any way, including by threatening, intimidating, bribing, or harassing them. The purpose of these laws is to ensure that witnesses and jurors can participate in the criminal justice process freely and without fear of reprisal. When witnesses or jurors are influenced, it can lead to unfair trials and unjust verdicts.
If you have been charged with influencing witnesses or jurors, contact our team at Jackson John Defence Lawyers for expert guidance on your best way forward.
The Law
Influencing a Witness
Pursuant to section 323(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), you are guilty of influencing a witness of you:
- Engage in an act; and
- Do so intending to procure, persuade, induce or otherwise cause any person called, or to be called, as a witness in judicial proceedings to give false evidence, withhold true evidence, not attend as a witness or not produce any thing in evidence under a subpoena or summons.
The term ‘judicial proceeding’ refers to one where a judicial tribunal can take evidence under oath or affirmation. A ‘judicial tribunal’ is any person or body authorised by law or through the consent of the parties to conduct a hearing to determine a matter.
The Prosecution must prove both these elements beyond reasonable doubt. If it cannot prove each of these elements to this required standard, the Prosecution will fail, and you will not be convicted.
Influencing a Juror
Pursuant to section 323(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), you are guilty of influencing a witness of you:
- Engage in an act; and
- Do so intending to influence any person, whether or not a particular person, in the person’s conduct as a juror in judicial proceedings other than by the production of evidence or argument in open court.
The Prosecution must prove both these elements beyond reasonable doubt. If it cannot prove each of these elements to this required standard, the Prosecution will fail, and you will not be convicted.
It is important to note that it is immaterial whether the person had been sworn or affirmed as a juror at the time of the conduct.
What are the Different Types of Penalties?
The maximum penalty for the offence of influencing witnesses or jurors is 7 years imprisonment or 14 years if the conduct was intended to procure the conviction or acquittal of any person for a serious indictable offence. A serious indictable offence carries, at minimum, a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
However, it is important to bear in mind that this is the maximum penalty, and as such, the types of penalties vary greatly. The Court may consider sentencing you to one or more of the following:
Section 10 Bond
There are three types of section 10 penalties, including:
- Section 10(1)(a);
- Section 10(1)(c); or
- Section 10A.
A section 10(1)(a) bond is a finding of guilt, but the Court does not record a conviction. A bond such as this is usually only given where you have a clear criminal and/or driving record, your offending behaviour is minor, there is little chance of you offending again, and there were mitigating factors that led to the offending. Even if these facts apply to your case, there is no guarantee you will get this type of penalty. However, cogent subjective material and robust submissions on your behalf can be very persuasive to the Court.
A section 10(1)(c) bond involves a finding of guilt, a conviction is recorded, and you can be referred to an intervention program.
A section 10A penalty involves a finding of guilt and a conviction is recorded, but no further action is taken.
Fine
A court-issued fine is a financial penalty imposed by a court due to a legal violation or offence. It requires the individual found guilty to pay a specific amount of money to the government or a designated authority. Court-issued fines are used to deter unlawful behaviour and may vary in amount depending on the nature and severity of the offence. Failure to pay the fine can result in further legal actions, such as additional penalties or even imprisonment in some cases.
Conditional Release Order (CRO)
A CRO is a sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. The Court can decide whether or not to record a conviction. The maximum term of the CRO is two years and may involve conditions such as to be not consume alcohol for the period of the bond. If you breach a CRO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Community Correction Order (CCO)
A CCO is another type of sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. It typically involves more onerous conditions than a CRO and you will receive a conviction. If you breach a CCO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Intensive Correction Order (ICO)
If the Court is satisfied that imprisonment is warranted, it can order that you serve the term of imprisonment in the community while subject to the supervision of Community Corrections and conditions such as community service, curfew, or rehabilitation. If you breach an ICO, the Parole Board will determine whether to order you serve the remainder of the period in full-time custody. This is because an ICO is a sentence of imprisonment ordered to be served in the community.
Imprisonment
This offence carries maximum penalty of ten (10) years imprisonment, depending on the factual circumstances of the offending. However, full-time imprisonment is only reserved for the most serious matters.
What are the Possible Defences?
The most common defences to offences include:
Not Meeting the Elements
A defence to the charge of influencing witnesses or jurors could be that the Prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not engage in a positive act, or that any such act was intended to influence any person, whether or not a particular person, in the person's conduct as a juror in judicial proceedings other than by the production of evidence or argument in open court. For example, a case of mistaken identity would demonstrate that you did not engage in an act yourself and therefore the first element is not made out on the facts.
Duress
Duress involves circumstances where you have been forced to commit a crime against your will, whether it be by way of threat, intimidation, or some other form of coercion. The threat must be so serious that it would have caused an ordinary person of like firmness in your situation to act in the same way. Furthermore, the threat must be the operative cause of your actions. In other words, if you are not worried about the threat at the time of the commission of the offence, or some other factor influences your decision to commit the crime, duress may not be established. Finally, the threat must be continuing. What this means is that if there is an opportunity at some point for you to obviate the threat, by reporting it to the police for example, duress may not be accepted.
Once duress is raised, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative duress beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting in duress. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Why Jackson John Defence Lawyers?
We understand the serious consequences that a conviction for influencing witnesses or jurors can have on your life and reputation. We will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests, and to develop a strong defence strategy. We will also inform you of your options and advise you on the best course of action throughout the legal process.
Our Jackson John Defence Lawyers team has a proven track record of success in defending clients charged with influencing witnesses or jurors. We are committed to providing our clients with the highest quality legal representation and will fight to get you the best possible outcome in your case.
Contact Jackson John Defence Lawyers today for a free 15-minute initial consultation if you have been charged with influencing witnesses or jurors.
Hindering an Investigation
Hindering an investigation is a serious offence that can have a significant impact on your life and reputation. If you have been charged with this offence, it is important to seek legal advice immediately.
Jackson John Defence Lawyers is a leading criminal defence law firm with extensive experience in defending clients charged with hindering an investigation. We understand the serious consequences that a conviction can have, and we will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests
What You Need to Know
The Law
Under section 315 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), hindering an investigation is a criminal offence. A person will be guilty of this offence if they do anything intending in any way to hinder:
- The investigation of a serious indictable offence committed by another person;
- The discovery of evidence concerning a serious indictable offence committed by another person; or
- The apprehension of another person who has committed a serious indictable offence.
A ‘serious indictable offence’ refers to any offence that carries a maximum penalty of at least 5 years imprisonment. This covers a large amount of offences in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), such as assaults that cause actual bodily harm, fraud, damaging property, and wounding.
In terms of the investigation of a serious indictable offence, a person is considered to have committed a serious indictable offence if a public officer who is engaged in the investigation of offenders suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed such an offence.
The law necessitates a positive act that ultimately makes it difficult for officers to do their jobs. It cannot be the case that somebody is guilty of hindering an investigation for simply refusing or failing to divulge certain information.
Importantly, an individual may be found guilty of hindering an investigation even in circumstances where the person that is suspected of a serious indictable offence is never successfully convicted.
Some examples of hindering an investigation include:
- Lying to officers to divert their investigation.
- Hiding evidence related to a criminal investigation.
- Covering a guilty person by producing and maintain false statements.
What Must the Prosecution Prove?
To be guilty of hindering an investigation, the Prosecution must establish each of these elements beyond reasonable doubt:
- The accused engaged in an act, which had the purpose of:
- Hindering the investigation of a serious indictable offence committed by another person;
- Hindering the discovery of evidence concerning a serious indictable offence committed by another person; or
- Hindering the apprehension of another person who committed a serious indictable offence.
If these elements cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Prosecution will fail, and the accused will not be convicted.
- The accused engaged in an act, which had the purpose of:
What are the Different Types of Penalties?
The maximum penalty for hindering an investigation is 7 years imprisonment. However, it is important to bear in mind that this is the maximum penalty, and as such, the types of penalties vary greatly.
The Court may consider sentencing you to one or more of the following:
Section 10 Bond
There are three types of section 10 penalties, including:
- Section 10(1)(a);
- Section 10(1)(c); or
- Section 10A.
A section 10(1)(a) bond is a finding of guilt, but the Court does not record a conviction. A bond such as this is usually only given where you have a clear criminal and/or driving record, your offending behaviour is minor, there is little chance of you offending again, and there were mitigating factors that led to the offending. Even if these facts apply to your case, there is no guarantee you will get this type of penalty. However, cogent subjective material and robust submissions on your behalf can be very persuasive to the Court.
A section 10(1)(c) bond involves a finding of guilt, a conviction is recorded, and you can be referred to an intervention program.
A section 10A penalty involves a finding of guilt and a conviction is recorded, but no further action is taken.
Fine
A court-issued fine is a financial penalty imposed by a court due to a legal violation or offence. It requires the individual found guilty to pay a specific amount of money to the government or a designated authority. Court-issued fines are used to deter unlawful behaviour and may vary in amount depending on the nature and severity of the offence. Failure to pay the fine can result in further legal actions, such as additional penalties or even imprisonment in some cases.
Conditional Release Order (CRO)
A CRO is a sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. The Court can decide whether or not to record a conviction. The maximum term of the CRO is two years and may involve conditions such as to be not consume alcohol for the period of the bond. If you breach a CRO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Community Correction Order (CCO)
A CCO is another type of sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. It typically involves more onerous conditions than a CRO and you will receive a conviction. If you breach a CCO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Intensive Correction Order (ICO)
If the Court is satisfied that imprisonment is warranted, it can order that you serve the term of imprisonment in the community while subject to the supervision of Community Corrections and conditions such as community service, curfew, or rehabilitation. If you breach an ICO, the Parole Board will determine whether to order you serve the remainder of the period in full-time custody. This is because an ICO is a sentence of imprisonment ordered to be served in the community.
Imprisonment
This offence carries maximum penalty of seven (7) years imprisonment, depending on the factual circumstances of the offending. However, full-time imprisonment is only reserved for the most serious matters.
What are the Possible Defences?
The most common defences to offences include:
Not Meeting the Elements
A defence to the offence of hindering an investigation may be that the Prosecution cannot prove the requisite elements beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, it may be the case that the accused did not engage in a positive act, and therefore cannot be charged under the legislation.
Duress
Duress involves circumstances where you have been forced to commit a crime against your will, whether it be by way of threat, intimidation, or some other form of coercion. The threat must be so serious that it would have caused an ordinary person of like firmness in your situation to act in the same way. Furthermore, the threat must be the operative cause of your actions. In other words, if you are not worried about the threat at the time of the commission of the offence, or some other factor influences your decision to commit the crime, duress may not be established. Finally, the threat must be continuing. What this means is that if there is an opportunity at some point for you to obviate the threat, by reporting it to the police for example, duress may not be accepted.
Once duress is raised, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative duress beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting in duress. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Necessity
For necessity to be established, the following must exist at the time of the commission of the offence:
You acted only to avoid serious, irreversible consequences to yourself or someone you were obligated to protect;
You honestly and reasonably believed that you were in a situation of immediate peril; and
Your actions were reasonable and proportionate to the situation.
As is the case with self-defence, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative necessity beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting out of necessity. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Why Jackson John Defence Lawyers?
We understand the severe consequences a conviction for hindering an investigation can have on your life and reputation. We will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests, and to develop a strong defence strategy. We will also inform you of your options and advise you on the best course of action throughout the legal process.
Our team at Jackson John Defence Lawyers has a proven track record of success in defending clients charged with hindering an investigation. We are committed to providing our clients with the highest-quality legal representation and will fight to get you the best possible outcome in your case.
If you have been charged with hindering an investigation, contact us at Jackson John Defence Lawyers today for a free 15-minute initial consultation.
Concealing a Serious Indictable Offence
Concealing a serious indictable offence is a serious offence that can have a significant impact on your life and reputation. If you have been charged with this offence, it is important to seek legal advice immediately.
Jackson John Defence Lawyers is a leading criminal defence law firm with extensive experience defending clients charged with concealing a serious indictable offence. We understand the serious consequences that a conviction can have, and we will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests.
What You Need to Know
The Law
Under section 316(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a person will be guilty of the offence if they are an adult who:
- Knows or believes that a serious indictable offence has been committed by another person; and
- Knows or believes that he or she has information that might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for that offence; and
- Fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the NSW Police Force or other appropriate authority.
A ‘serious indictable offence’ refers to any offence that carries a maximum penalty of at least 5 years imprisonment. This covers a large amount of offences in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), such as assaults that cause actual bodily harm, fraud, damaging property, and wounding.
However, it is important to note that for the purposes of this section, a serious indictable offence will not include child abuse offences, as concealing a child abuse is dealt with as a separate crime under section 316A.
What Must the Prosecution Prove?
To be guilty of concealing a serious indictable offence, the Prosecution must establish each of these elements beyond reasonable doubt:
- The accused was an adult;
- The accused knew or believed that a serious indictable offence had been committed by another person;
- The accused knew or believed that he or she had information that might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension (arrest) of the offender, or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for that offence;
- The accused did not bring that information to the attention of law enforcement authorities; and
- The accused had no reasonable excuse for failing to bring the information to the attention of law enforcement authorities.
If the Prosecution cannot establish these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution will fail, and the accused will not be convicted.
What are the Different Types of Penalties?
The maximum penalty for concealing a serious indictable offence varies. Where the maximum penalty for the offence concealed was not more than 10 years imprisonment, the maximum penalty for concealing this serious indictable offence is 2 years imprisonment.
If the maximum penalty for the offence concealed is more than 10 years imprisonment but not more than 20 years, the maximum penalty under this offence is 3 years imprisonment.
If the maximum penalty for a concealed offence is more than 20 years imprisonment, the maximum penalty for concealing the offence is 5 years imprisonment.
However, it is important to bear in mind that these are the maximum penalties, and as such, the type of penalties vary greatly depending upon the factual scenario. The Court may consider sentencing you to one or more of the following:
Section 10 Bond
There are three types of section 10 penalties, including:
- Section 10(1)(a);
- Section 10(1)(c); or
- Section 10A.
A section 10(1)(a) bond is a finding of guilt, but the Court does not record a conviction. A bond such as this is usually only given where you have a clear criminal and/or driving record, your offending behaviour is minor, there is little chance of you offending again, and there were mitigating factors that led to the offending. Even if these facts apply to your case, there is no guarantee you will get this type of penalty. However, cogent subjective material and robust submissions on your behalf can be very persuasive to the Court.
A section 10(1)(c) bond involves a finding of guilt, a conviction is recorded, and you can be referred to an intervention program.
A section 10A penalty involves a finding of guilt and a conviction is recorded, but no further action is taken.
Fine
A court-issued fine is a financial penalty imposed by a court due to a legal violation or offence. It requires the individual found guilty to pay a specific amount of money to the government or a designated authority. Court-issued fines are used to deter unlawful behaviour and may vary in amount depending on the nature and severity of the offence. Failure to pay the fine can result in further legal actions, such as additional penalties or even imprisonment in some cases.
Conditional Release Order (CRO)
A CRO is a sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. The Court can decide whether or not to record a conviction. The maximum term of the CRO is two years and may involve conditions such as to be not consume alcohol for the period of the bond. If you breach a CRO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Community Correction Order (CCO)
A CCO is another type of sentence which allows you to remain in the community, but you are supervised by Community Corrections. It typically involves more onerous conditions than a CRO and you will receive a conviction. If you breach a CCO, you will be brought before the Magistrate that sentenced you and potentially be re-sentenced to a more serious penalty.
Intensive Correction Order (ICO)
If the Court is satisfied that imprisonment is warranted, it can order that you serve the term of imprisonment in the community while subject to the supervision of Community Corrections and conditions such as community service, curfew, or rehabilitation. If you breach an ICO, the Parole Board will determine whether to order you serve the remainder of the period in full-time custody. This is because an ICO is a sentence of imprisonment ordered to be served in the community.
Imprisonment
This offence carries maximum penalty ranges from two (2) – five (5) years imprisonment, depending on the factual circumstances of the offending. However, full-time imprisonment is only reserved for the most serious matters.
What are the Possible Defences?
The most common defences to offences include:
Not Meeting the Elements
A defence to the offence of concealing a serious indictable may be that the Prosecution cannot prove the requisite elements beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, it may be the case that the accused did not know or believe that a serious indictable offence had been committed by another person. As such, the elements would not be made out to the requisite standard, and the accused would be acquitted.
Duress
Duress involves circumstances where you have been forced to commit a crime against your will, whether it be by way of threat, intimidation, or some other form of coercion. The threat must be so serious that it would have caused an ordinary person of like firmness in your situation to act in the same way. Furthermore, the threat must be the operative cause of your actions. In other words, if you are not worried about the threat at the time of the commission of the offence, or some other factor influences your decision to commit the crime, duress may not be established. Finally, the threat must be continuing. What this means is that if there is an opportunity at some point for you to obviate the threat, by reporting it to the police for example, duress may not be accepted.
Once duress is raised, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative duress beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting in duress. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Necessity
For necessity to be established, the following must exist at the time of the commission of the offence:
- You acted only to avoid serious, irreversible consequences to yourself or someone you were obligated to protect;
- You honestly and reasonably believed that you were in a situation of immediate peril; and
- Your actions were reasonable and proportionate to the situation.
As is the case with self-defence, the onus lies with the Prosecution to negative necessity beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it is encumbent upon the Prosecution to eliminate any reasonable possibility that you were acting out of necessity. In considering this question, the evidence should be taken at its highest in favour of the accused. It is not essential that there be evidence from you as to your beliefs and perceptions, but it must be raised fairly on the evidence.
Why Jackson John Defence Lawyers?
We understand the serious consequences that a conviction for concealing a serious indictable offence can have on your life and reputation. We will work tirelessly to protect your rights and interests, and to develop a strong defence strategy. We will also keep you informed of your options and advise you on the best course of action throughout the legal process.
Our team at Jackson John Defence Lawyers have a proven track record of success in defending clients charged with hindering an investigation. We are committed to providing our clients with the highest quality legal representation, and we will fight to get you the best possible outcome in your case.
If you have been charged with concealing a serious indictable offence, contact us at Jackson John Defence Lawyers today for a free 15-minute initial consultation.
Successful Cases
Get in Touch
Get Your Free Initial Consultation