Mackenzie Mitchell Solicitors

24/06/2025

Instead of telling their story in the witness box, many witnesses may soon give the first part of their evidence by pre-recorded video conversations with Queensland police officers (VREC).

Legal Aid Queensland identified several problems from the pilot program. What is proposed also removes many of the safeguards in the pilot.

"It is [Legal Aid Queensland]'s strong view that a comprehensive review of the VREC pilot ought to be undertaken before the pilot is extended state-wide. LAQ notes that in 2024 the pilot was extended to "enable further consideration of the use and effectiveness of the VREC". There is no data or information that indicates whether the pilot was successful in achieving its stated purposes." [1]

On the other hand, the Queensland Law Society was more supportive.

"... [The Queensland Law Society] do not oppose the proposed legislative amendments that will expand the VREC scheme to Magistrates Court statewide." [2]

18/05/2025

Australians who like to argue or post on-line should be careful of a new(ish) law.

From 10 December last year, the new criminal law has the potential to severely affect people who write about other people.

The risk arises if you post a photograph of someone's face.

Or their name.

Or a link to one of their social media accounts.

Or their address. Or many other bits of identifying information [1].

You can commit a criminal offence if you post the information "in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing or harassing" to the person. [2]

The mental element is recklessness. You will be reckless if you were aware of a substantial risk that your post could be regarded as menacing or harassing, and that posting it anyway was "unjustifiable" in light of the risk. [3]

The offence is so broad, it could capture an email sent to only one person. [4]

The problem with our lawmakers using a "reasonable person" test here, is that there is wide disagreement among reasonable people about expectations of privacy and when publication of personal information is scary.

If you grew up in a small town, everyone knew where you lived, where you went to school, where you worked, possibly even your birthday.

In the metropolis, inhabitants are mostly strangers. Many have come to equate privacy with anonymity. Some people have good reason to keep their whereabouts unknown - but a person posting the information may not know of those good reasons.

It's a minefield.

Some early explosions are likely to be on community Facebook groups - outing alleged criminals. A group called Qld Crime regularly posts faces captured on CCTV systems. A driver's licence was posted there a few days ago.

Angry family law litigants often post about their former spouse or partner.

Victims of on-line harassment often "out" their abusers by posting screenshots - taking the "How do you like your Mum and your boss seeing this?" approach.

It is not difficult to imagine how this law will be weaponised to chill disclosure of information that would be in the public interest.

I could not turn up records of any convictions, nor reports of any charges - although some possible media reports were behind paywalls.

It's now very difficult to know (or to advise) where the limits are.

08/05/2025

We are seeking a personal assistant to join our team on a full-time basis, 5 days a week.
About us
Mackenzie Mitchell Solicitors is a busy solicitors’ law firm located in the heart of Brisbane CBD. We practice exclusively in criminal law.
In this role, you will be supporting two experienced solicitors.
What you’ll be doing
• Answering incoming telephone calls and liaising with clients directly
• Diary management
• Communicating with current and prospective clients, counsel, and prosecuting bodies
• Preparation and maintenance of client files
• Attending the court registry to file or deliver documents
• General administrative support to ensure smooth operation of our practice
What we’re looking for
We are seeking a robust, independently motivated individual with an aptitude for time management and organisation. Strong written, verbal, and inter-personal communication skills are a must, as your day-to-day will include liaising with clients and other professional and administrative bodies.
Proficiency with Microsoft Office is beneficial.
Applicants with no prior experience in legal practice will be considered.
If you are seeking an administrative support role this may be the fulfilling role that you are looking for. Interested applicants can apply via email at [email protected]

Find your ideal job at SEEK with 639 Personal Assistant jobs found in Brisbane QLD 4000. View all our Personal Assistant vacancies now with new jobs added daily!

10/03/2025

You have a right to defend your Queensland home against intruders.

Every few years, there are demands to change the law, to provide even greater protection against home invasions.

Some people seem to want the freedom to shoot any intruder without any consequences.

But "castle doctrine" laws might not lead to results we like.

In one famous case, Yoshi, a Japanese exchange student set out for a fancy dress party. Yoshi went to the wrong house and rang the doorbell. A woman opened a side door. He walked towards her,dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever". She panicked, slammed the door and told her husband to get his gun. Rodney Peairs grabbed his gun, and opened the carport door. Yoshi said, "We're here for the party," and walked towards the Rodney. Yoshi did not stop approaching. At a distance of about 1.5 metres, Rodney fired, killing Yoshi. [1]

The police at first decided not to charge Rodney. After a public outcry, he was charged. At the trial, the unanimous verdict of the jury was Not Guilty. [2]

Another boy who was trick or treating at Halloween was gunned down by a terrified occupier. Quentin Patrick emptied his AK-47, shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing a knock on the door.

He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year.

"He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," said the Police Chief. [3]

Quentin Patrick pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. [4]

In Queensland, the prosecution, to overcome a defence of dwelling claim, must prove that the accused did NOT reasonably believe the deceased was about to commit an indictable offence, or did NOT reasonably believe the force used was necessary.

There's more latitude given to a home occupier than to almost any other accused. That's because for this defence it doesn't matter whether the force was actually reasonable. Nor does it matter, legally, whether the jury thinks the force used was reasonable.

It's enough if the home occupier themselves might have reasonably believed the force was necessary.

The home occupier gets the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

I think Queensland has the law about right.

There is a review into it happening now. [5]

Interestingly, in two of the Queensland cases where the occupier was found guilty, the occupier left the home to confront the deceased. In all the circumstances, those juries might have thought the occupier wasn't really intent on defending their home, but was actually looking for a fight. [6]

If an intruder actually enters the home, the issues are more clear cut. The decisions vary, as they should, with the facts of each case.

Some more interesting cases are linked in the comments at [7].

Some of those cases demonstrate the danger of arming yourself, if the people outside your house turn out to be police officers.

09/03/2025

Queenslanders have legal rights to defend their homes.

You have a right to use reasonable force to prevent a trespasser from entering your land or home. You can also use reasonable force to remove a trespasser. The condition on this right is that you cannot cause grievous bodily harm. [1]

You have a right to use force to prevent a person entering your home if you reasonably believe:
a. they are trying to get in to commit an indictable offence; and,
b. it is necessary to use that force. [2]

Even force resulting in death or grievous bodily harm may be protected under this right to defend a dwelling.

It is entry to the building* that matters. It is not a right to defend the surrounding land, or an open car port. [3]

You may also use reasonable force to:

1. prevent a crime (but not all criminal offences are crimes); [4]
2. prevent someone from taking your property if they have no right to it; [5]
3. re-take your property from someone who took it with no right to it; [6]

How these rights apply to real life confrontations can be complicated. The occupier of the home is not always in the right.

Dean Webber stabbed two intruders in his Townsville home. Both died. He was not charged with any offence. [7]

In another case, Michael Cuskelly said he was defending his Ipswich home and his wife. He told the police he did not believe that the lock on the front door of his unit would withstand a determined attack. He said that he did not want the Mr Carr in his house "[a]ttacking my... wife and me". He said he was "physically in fear of my life and my Mrs life." He unlocked the security door of his unit and stepped outside. He said that he saw Mr Carr coming up the stairs, and then went back inside and obtained two knives. He went back out the door and walked down about two steps and kicked the Mr Carr in the chest.

"He's come at me first. I've tried to kick at his chest. Trying to punch at me I've kicked him. Didn't faze him. And I've the knives gone into his chest. I didn't realise that the damage that had been done to him."

At his first trial Mr Cuskelly was convicted of murder. He appealed. A re-trial was ordered. [8] He was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to 9 years in prison.

The judge said the stabbing was a gross over-reaction, "All you had to do was close your front door." [9]

A farmer in England shot two burglars inside his home, killing one of them. He claimed he shot blindly when a light was shone in his eyes. The prosecution claimed he lay in wait for the burglars and shot them in cold blood. The farmer was convicted of murder, but that was reduced to manslaughter on appeal. [10]

The law in England at the time did not include a right similar to Queensland's defence of a dwelling. The farmer relied on the general law of self-defence.

Every few years, there are demands to change the law, to provide even greater protection to people in their homes. Some commenters seem to relish the idea of a right to slaughter any intruder.

24/02/2025

Life on-line can grind you down. Or drive you away.

To enjoy it, and thrive, we've found some guiding principles helpful.

1. Focus on the merits of the question. Relentlessly. Focus.

2. Most responses to you will be diversions and deflections. Don't be diverted by irrelevancies. Focus.

3. The personalities are nearly always irrelevant distractions. Who the person is, is nearly always irrelevant. Respond to what they wrote. Insist they do the same.

4. Insults and smears signal to the audience that your argument is weak. Don't do it. Ignore it when others do it. Apart from anything else, it's boring. You'll be ten times more interesting if you eschew this distraction (the ad hominem fallacy).

Smears include accusations of ulterior motives. ("His party wants to destroy the economy!") Ask yourself why good, intelligent people who want good outcomes would support that idea. Assume people are well-intentioned unless there is hard evidence of bad faith.

5. Avoid over-generalising. Stick to what you can support with logic. (the hasty generalisation fallacy).

6. Don't frame complex decisions as binary choices. (the false dichotomy fallacy).

7. Be empirical not ideological.

A sound argument is sound whether it's from a person on the yellow team or the red team. The plaintiff or the respondent. The left party or the right party. It is the evidence and reason that matters.

For the sake of your own clarity of thought, avoid aligning yourself too closely with any faction or ideological position, lest your perception become distorted by partisan bias.

Even the smartest and most respected expert can be mistaken.

8. Discuss the other side's best argument. Every team/side/party has some fools and spouts some nonsense. The interesting discussion is about the best points, not the worst. And if you can resolve the heart of the question, the nonsense points fall away.

9. Let them have the last word - when they write something that says nothing or adds nothing.

21/02/2025

Beware bad legal advice on the internet #4.

"Fines are unconstitutional because of the Boilermakers' Case"

This meme is misleading people all around Australia.

There are many things the State Parliaments can do that the Australian Parliament may not. That's how our federation is set up.

The Boilermakers' case was in 1956. It was about the federal judicial power.

That case does not prevent the States from passing laws to create agencies like SPER* to enforce (not impose) the collection of fines.

If the Boilermakers' case made SPER enforcement illegal, a court would have ruled so by now.

In fact, the argument has been made to a court. Ms Kaula Hatzisavas made this exact challenge to the SDRO in NSW. She lost.

Hatzisavas v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWSC 284
https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/284.html

In an earlier stage of that case, Justice Rothman said:
"What Ms Hatzisavas seeks to prohibit here is the alleged exercise of state judicial power. While there are limitations on the exercise of judicial power by State Courts or qualifications on the exercise of inherent power of the Supreme Court arising under the Constitution, the limitations are not as strict, if they exist at all, as exists in relation to the exercise of federal power." [2013] NSWSC 2050

A good rule of thumb, when you see someone online saying, "The government can't do that!" or "This law is invalid. We don't have to follow it!" is to ask them:
"Has a Court in Australia ever accepted that argument? Show me please."

There are a lot of assertions about the law and the Constitution made vigorously on the internet, which have been rejected by the Courts, over and over again.

If your legal argument won't stand up in Court, it's not much use to anyone.



*The State Penalties Enforcement Registry (in Queensland)

21/02/2025

Most people know the police will tell you two things about your right to silence.

The third part, you'll only hear from a lawyer.

In Queensland, if you choose not to answer any of a police officer's questions about a suspected offence:

Your decision can't be held against you.

It can't be used to make you look guilty.

You can't be punished for it.

If the case comes before a jury, the jury would probably never hear that you made that decision. If, for some unusual reason, they were told about it, the judge must give them a long, stern warning. It's your right. It can't be used to help the prosecution prove the charge.

However, if you pick and choose, answer some questions but not others, that can be used to suggest you did not answer because you knew you were guilty.

The best and safest response - "I do not wish to answer any questions until I have spoken to my lawyer. May I call my lawyer now please?" Repeat until the call is made.

If you don't know a criminal defence lawyer, ask for a phone book, or a list.

Most defence firms have a 24 hour number.

You should give your name and address. If you have an identification document, like your driver's licence, you should show them. It's usually sensible to give your date of birth.

But no other answers. Not to, "How long have you lived here?" or "Is this your room?" or "How was your weekend?" Seemingly harmless questions are all part of the investigators' gamesmanship. Every bit of information is a lever. And many are not really harmless. "Is everything in here yours?"

During a search, the police often say, "You can call your lawyer when we question you. But not just yet....Now, where did you get this?" That's unlawful, but common. Don't answer. Repeat your request to call a lawyer.

You can be required to unlock phones or computers. But only if they have the right warrant or court Order. You should still ask for legal advice first.

In traffic stops or traffic accidents the rules are a bit different. You should still ask for legal advice before answering questions.

31/10/2024

W: Hey babe did u know you r***d me last Sat?

M: WTH?!! You told me that you loved it!!?

W: I said that after tho

M: So confused rn!!! You’ve always liked it when I come on to you silently like that. It’s our thing! What did I do wrong ????

W: U didn’t ask

M: What?! We’ve always had good communication. & trust. You always tell me what you like and don’t like. Why didn’t you say something?

W: I wanted u so much. It was grt. Rocked my world like its never been rocked b4. Still r**e tho. Cos I didn’t say anything. I didn’t do anything.

M: But you consented!

W: Only in my head. That doesn’t count now. New law in Qld. [1] Macy explained it to me at lunch 2day. Has to be agreed – by me saying or doing something [2]

M: This is crazy talk. Anyway, I believed you were consenting. Anyone in my position would think so

W: Nah. Sry babe. What u thought doesn’t matter now. Cos u didn’t do or say anything to find out, from me, did u? [3]

M: I didn’t need to. I knew you were into it. And you were! You just said so.

W: Not legal consent. So u r a ra**st. Sorry babe. Don’t worry tho. I’m still into u. Nothings gonna change unless I catch Jaimie flirtn with u again. Then Ill show this chat to the coppers --- just jks. R u home for dinner?

31/10/2024

This stand-up comedy bit is popular on Facebook. It has 1.2 million views.

The audience seemed to love it.

If the performer did this in Queensland, they could go to jail.

Would an audience laugh here?

Or if the genders were reversed?

https://www.facebook.com/reel/867509482166981

30/10/2024

Children are not adults. Ever.

The evil of the "Adult Crime, Adult Time" slogan is that it stops us from seeing the offender as a child.

A child committing an "adult crime" - whatever meaning that nonsense term might suggest - is still a child.

A useful thought experiment - how do we think about under-age sexual activity? Some children enthusiastically engage in the most adult of sexual adventures. But the law is there to protect them from themselves. And also from the malign influences of peers and adults.

Children have always misbehaved. They will in the future. The policy choice is how we respond. We're responsible for that choice. The children are not.

If we just say, "They knew the consequences. They made their choices," then we're dodging taking responsibility for our adult choice about the consequences. It's a cop-out. We will have failed the children, morally and practically.

At a practical level, harsher sentencing doesn't work. Deterrence has less effect on impulsive people who act heedless of consequences. It's a policy which delivers ever diminishing returns. An abusive, punitive policy will produce tomorrow's generation of addicts, armed robbers and ra**sts. It's in our self-interest to look after the children.

The harder we whack them, the more dangerous and violent they will be later.

A good guide to how we could respond better is to think about the difference between how a wise school principal deals with a child, compared to a prison guard.

I'm all for accountability, consequences, and responsibility. Reasonable minds can differ about how best to deliver those to children.

But not about whether they are children. Nor that our response should be appropriate to the child.

The political power of the slogan lies in turning our minds away from the child.

Once we adopt this slogan, we can justify to ourselves doing things that we know to be wrong. Doing things which we know should not be done to children - and we can even feel good about ourselves for doing it - because we've bought into a fiction that the offender is not a child.

Whatever the faults of other political parties, once the LNP put this slogan on billboards - chose it to be the main plank of their campaign - took this cheap opportunity, which they must know to be wrong, and which must lead to injustice and cruelty - I could not vote for the LNP.

It's not just wrong. It's evil.

This is how evil is done by governments, especially by democratically elected governments.

It starts with denying the essence of the human being on the receiving end of a brutal policy. Here, the essential feature is that we are punishing a child.

12/10/2024

Enthusiastic consent is not a requirement of the new laws about sexual consent in Queensland.

A government paid ad popping up in my feeds is both wrong and confusing.

The video ad says "Only 100% is consent".

But that's not the law.

Consent means, in the new law, free and voluntary agreement.

Despite some mixed feelings, some doubts, some guilt, some hesitation, some reservations, people may freely agree.

If they freely agree -they have capacity to agree - they say or do something to communicate they agree, then they have legally consented.

Wrong messages in government communications confuse public understanding.



https://www.facebook.com/QueenslandGovernment/videos/1479804759348644