This article celebrates the recognition of a female solicitor at Velasquez Legal, who was recently named as one of the best solicitors in Sydney for 2023. The post highlights the achievements, dedication and hard work of the solicitor and also praises the contribution of her colleagues and support staff towards her success.

Section 322 of the Crimes Act of 1900 in Australia makes it illegal to threaten or intimidate judges, witnesses, jurors, or public justice officials. The maximum sentence for this crime is 10 years in prison, or 14 years if the behavior was meant to get someone convicted or found not guilty of a serious indictable crime. To prove the crime, the prosecution must prove several facts beyond a reasonable doubt. There are also several ways to defend oneself in court if charged with the crime. The penalties for threatening or intimidating judges, witnesses, jurors, or public justice officials can include prison time and fines.

Corrupting witnesses or jurors is an offence under section 321 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years in prison, or 14 years where the conduct was intended to procure the conviction or acquittal of any person for a serious indictable offence. The prosecution is required to prove a number of facts beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the offence, and a person is entitled to an acquittal if they are unable to do so. There are also a number of legal defences available to those who are going to court for the offence.  Read on for more information about corruption of witnesses or jurors, including the offence itself, the matters that the prosecution needs to prove, your options, the available defences and the applicable penalties. The Law What is the Offence of Corrupting Witnesses or Jurors? Corruption of witnesses or jurors is an offence under section 321 of the Crimes Act 1900. Corrupting a witness Section 321(1)(a) states that a person is guilty of corrupting a witness if he or she: Confers procures or offers any benefit on or for any person or attempts to do so, and Does so intending to influence any person called, or to be called, in judicial proceedings to give false evidence, withhold true evidence or not to attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena. A ‘judicial proceeding’ is one in or before which a judicial tribunal can take evidence under oath. A ‘judicial tribunal’ is any person, including a coroner or arbitrator, or any court or other body authorised by law or by the consent of parties that may conduct a hearing to determine any matter or thing. Corrupting a juror Section 321(1)(b) states that a person is guilty of corrupting a juror if he or she: Confers procures or offers any benefit on or for any person or attempts to do so, Does so intending to influence any person, whether or not a particular person, in their conduct as a juror in any judicial proceeding, or not to attend as a juror in any judicial proceeding, and Intends by doing so to pervert the course of justice. It is immaterial whether the person who is intended to be influenced had been sworn as a juror at the time of the conduct. ‘Perverting the course of justice’ is defined by section 312 of the Act as, “obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating the course of justice or the administration of law”. It includes such conduct as: Attempting to bribe a police or judicial officer to avoid being prosecuted or punished, Falsely swearing or declaring that another person was responsible for an offence Using another person’s phone or email to manufacture a defence to a crime, or Encouraging or bribing another person to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit, or to provide a false alibi, or give false testimony in court. Benefitting from corrupting a witness Section 321(2)(a) states that a person is guilty of benefitting from corrupting a witness if he or she: Solicits accepts or agrees to accept any benefit for him or herself or for another, and Does so in order for a witness in judicial proceedings to give false evidence, or withhold true evidence, or not attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena. Benefitting from corrupting a juror Section 321(2)(b) states that a person is guilty of benefitting from corrupting a juror if he or she: Solicits accepts or agrees to accept any benefit for him or herself or for another, Does for him or herself as a juror in judicial proceedings or for any other person who is a juror in judicial proceedings to do or not do anything related to those proceedings, or to not attend those proceedings, and Intends by doing so to pervert the course of justice. What are the Penalties? The maximum penalty for corrupting witnesses or jurors is 10 years in prison or 14 years where the conduct was intended to procure the conviction or acquittal of any person for a serious indictable offence (which is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 5 years or more in prison). However, is important to bear in mind that this is the maximum sentence that can be imposed, and that the court can apply any of the following penalties for the offence: Section 10 Dismissal Conditional Release Order Fine Community Correction Order Intensive Correction Order A shorter prison term What Does the Prosecution Have to Prove? It is important to bear in mind that, at all times, the prosecution bears the onus of establishing each element of the specific offence under section 321 beyond all reasonable doubt. Corrupting a witness For a person to be found guilty of corrupting a witness under section 321(1)(a), the prosecution must establish each of the following ‘elements’ (or ingredients) of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: The defendant conferred, procured or offered any benefit on or for any person or attempted to do so, and The defendant did so intending to influence any person called, or to be called, in judicial proceedings to give false evidence, withhold true evidence or not to attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena. A ‘judicial proceeding’ is one in or before which a judicial tribunal can take evidence under oath. A ‘judicial tribunal’ is any person, including a coroner or arbitrator, or any court or other body authorised by law or by the consent of parties that may conduct a hearing to determine any matter or thing. The prosecution will fail if it cannot prove each of these elements to the required standard. Corrupting a juror For a person to be found guilty of corrupting a juror under section 321(1)(b), the prosecution must establish each of the following ‘elements’ (or ingredients) of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: The defendant conferred, procured or offered any benefit on or for any person or attempted to do so, The defendant did so intending to influence any person, whether or not a particular person, in their conduct as a juror in any judicial proceeding, or not to attend as a juror in any judicial proceeding, and The defendant intended by doing so to pervert the course of justice. It is immaterial whether the person intended to be influenced had been sworn as a juror at the time of the conduct. ‘Pervert the course of justice’ is defined by section 312 of the Act as: “obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating the course of justice or the administration of law”. It includes such conduct as: Attempting to bribe a police or judicial officer to avoid being prosecuted or punished, Falsely swearing or declaring that another person was responsible for an offence Using another person’s phone or email to manufacture a defence to a crime, or Encouraging or bribing another person to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit, or to provide a false alibi, or give false testimony in court. Benefitting from corrupting a witness For a person to be found guilty of benefitting from corrupting a witness under 321(2)(a), the prosecution must establish each of the following ‘elements’ (or ingredients) of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: The defendant solicited, accepted or agreed to accept any benefit for yourself or another, and The defendant did so in order for a witness in judicial proceedings to give false evidence, or withhold true evidence, or not attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena. Benefitting from corrupting a juror For a person to be found guilty of benefitting from corrupting a juror under 321(2)(b), the prosecution must establish each of the following ‘elements’ (or ingredients) of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: The defendant solicited, accepted or agreed to accept any benefit for him or herself or another person, The defendant did so for him or herself as a juror in judicial proceedings or for any other person who is a juror in judicial proceedings to do or not do anything related to those proceedings, or to not attend those proceedings, and The defendant intended by doing so to pervert the course of justice. What are the Defences? In addition to the requirement to prove each element of the offence, the prosecution must also disprove any of the following defences if properly raised: Duress, which is where you were threatened or coerced, Necessity, where the act was necessary to avert danger, and Self-defence, where you engaged in the act to defend yourself or another It must disprove any such defences beyond all reasonable doubt. Your Options in Court Pleading Not Guilty It is important to bear in mind that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt always rests on the prosecution, and that the prosecution must disprove any valid legal defence raised on the evidence before the court. Corrupting a witness Before you can be found guilty of corrupting a witness under 321(1)(a), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: You conferred, procured or offered any benefit on or for any person or attempted to do so, and You did so intending to influence any person called, or to be called, in judicial proceedings, give false evidence, withhold true evidence or not to attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena. There are a number of ways to defend a charge of corrupting a witness, including raising the fact that: The prosecution cannot prove you conferred, procured or offered any benefit on or for any person or attempted to do so, The prosecution cannot prove did so intending to influence any person called, or to be called, in judicial proceedings, The prosecution cannot prove any such influence was intended to get them to give false evidence, withhold true evidence or not to attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena, or A valid legal defence is available which the prosecution is unable to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. If any of these matters prevail, you must be found not guilty of the offence. A good lawyer will be able to make written submissions to the prosecution with a view to having the case against you withdrawn, or fight to have it thrown out of court if it proceeds to a defended hearing or trial. Corrupting a juror Before you can be found guilty of corrupting a juror under 321(1)(b), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: You conferred, procured or offered any benefit on or for any person or attempted to do so, You did so intending to influence any person, whether or not a particular person, in their conduct as a juror in any judicial proceeding, or not to attend as a juror in any judicial proceeding, and You intended by doing so to pervert the course of justice. There are a number of ways to defend a charge of corrupting a juror, including raising the fact that: The prosecution cannot prove you conferred, procured or offered any benefit on or for any person or attempted to do so, The prosecution cannot prove that if you did the above, you did not do so intending to influence any person, whether or not a particular person, in their conduct, The prosecution cannot prove that any conduct you intended to influence was in relation to as a juror in any judicial proceeding, or not to attend as a juror in any judicial proceeding, The prosecution cannot prove that, through your conduct, you intended to pervert the course of justice, or A valid legal defence is available which the prosecution is unable to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. If any of these matters prevail, you must be found not guilty of the offence. Benefitting from corrupting a witness Before you can be found guilty of benefitting from corrupting a witness under 321(2)(a), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: You solicited, accepted or agreed to accept any benefit for yourself or another, and You did so in order for a witness in judicial proceedings to give false evidence, or withhold true evidence, or not attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena. There are a number of ways to defend a charge of benefitting from corrupting a witness, including raising the fact that: The prosecution cannot prove you solicited, accepted or agreed to accept any benefit for yourself or another, The prosecution cannot prove the purpose of any such benefit was for a witness in judicial proceedings to give false evidence or withhold true evidence, or not attend as a witness, or not produce anything in evidence under a summons or subpoena, or A valid legal defence is available which the prosecution is unable to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. If any of these matters prevail, you must be found not guilty of the offence. Benefitting from corrupting a juror Before you can be found guilty of benefitting from corrupting a juror under 321(2)(b), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: You solicited, accepted or agreed to accept any benefit for him or herself or another person, You did so for yourself as a juror in judicial proceedings or for any other person who is a juror in judicial proceedings to do or not do anything related to those proceedings or to not attend those proceedings, and You intended by doing so to pervert the course of justice. There are a number of ways to defend a charge of benefitting from corrupting a juror, including raising the fact that: The prosecution cannot prove you solicited, accepted or agreed to accept any benefit for him or herself or another person, The prosecution cannot prove the purpose of any such benefit was for yourself as a juror in judicial proceedings or for any other person who is a juror in judicial proceedings to do or not do anything related to those proceedings or to not attend those proceedings, and The prosecution cannot prove you intended by doing so to pervert the course of justice. A valid legal defence is available which the prosecution is unable to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. If any of these matters prevail, you must be found not guilty of the offence. Pleading Guilty Where the prosecution evidence is very strong, you may decide to plead guilty to the offence. In that case, your lawyer may be able to negotiate the police ‘facts’ to reduce the seriousness of the offence. Your lawyer can also guide you on obtaining materials that can be handed up to the court during your sentencing – including a letter of apology, character references and any documents from counsellors or health care professionals you have consulted. These materials, together with persuasive verbal submissions by your lawyer in the courtroom, can help to ensure you receive the most lenient penalty that is possible in the circumstances. By pleading guilty at an early stage, you will also be entitled to a ‘discount’ of up to 25% on your sentence – which can lead to a less serious type of penalty being imposed; for example, a section 10 dismissal or a conditional release order rather than a more serious penalty. You will also be spared the time, expense and stress of a defended hearing or trial.

Section 319 of the Crimes Act of 1900 says that changing the way justice is done is a crime that can get you up to 14 years in prison. To prove the crime, the prosecution has to prove a number of facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that, the person is entitled to be set free. There are also a number of ways to defend yourself in court if you are charged with the crime.  Read on to learn more about perverting the course of justice, including what it is, what the prosecution has to prove, what your options are, how you can defend yourself, and what the penalties are. The Rules What does it mean to change the way justice is done? Under section 319 of the Crimes Act of 1900, it is illegal to try to get around the law. In this part, it says that a person is guilty if: Does something or doesn't do something, and does it or doesn't do it with the intent to change the way justice is done. "Pervert the course of justice" is defined by Section 312 of the Crimes Act as "obstructing, preventing, perverting, or defeating the course of justice or the administration of the law." Some examples of tampering with the course of justice are: Trying to pay off a police officer or a judge to avoid being charged or punished, Making a false oath or statement that someone else did something wrong Using someone else's phone or email to make up a defence for a crime. Encouraging or paying someone to plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit, give a false alibi, or lie in court. What is the punishment? If you try to change the way justice is done, you can get up to 14 years in prison. But it's important to remember that this is the maximum sentence that can be given and that the court can choose from any of the following: Section 10: Order of Dismissal with Conditions Fine Order for Community Service Order for Strict Punishment Less time in prison What Does the Government Need to Show? For someone to be found guilty of perverting the course of justice, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the following "elements" of the crime were present: The defendant did something or didn't do something, and he or she did it or didn't do it with the intent to get around the law. If the prosecution can't prove each of these things to the required level, the case will be dropped. How do you defend yourself? In addition to having to prove each part of the crime, the prosecution must also refute any of the following defences if they are raised in a proper way: Duress is when you were scared or forced to do something. Necessity, in which the act was done to avoid danger, and Self-Defense, in which the act was done to protect yourself or someone else. It must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these defences don't work. Your Choices in Court Not Guilty Plea Before you can be found guilty of perverting the course of justice, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: You did something or didn't do something, and you did it or didn't do it with the intention of getting in the way of justice. There are a number of ways to defend yourself against charges of perverting the course of justice. The prosecution can't prove that you did something or didn't do something. They also can't prove that anything you did or didn't do was done with the intention of perverting the course of justice. You have a valid legal defence that the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If any of these things happen, you should not be found guilty of the crime. A good lawyer will be able to write to the prosecution to try to get the case against you dropped, or they will fight to get it thrown out of court if it goes to a hearing or trial. Taking the blame You might decide to plead guilty to the crime if the evidence against you is very strong. In that case, your lawyer might be able to talk with the police about the "facts" to make the crime less serious. Your lawyer can also help you get materials that can be given to the court during your sentencing, such as a letter of apology, references from people who know you well, and any documents from therapists or doctors you have seen. Together, these pieces of evidence and your lawyer's convincing arguments in court can help make sure you get the lightest sentence possible given the situation. By pleading guilty early, you could get a "discount" of up to 25% on your sentence. This could mean that you get a less severe punishment, like a section 10 dismissal or a conditional release order, instead of a harsher one. You will also save time, money, and stress by not having to go to a hearing or trial to defend yourself.

Under section 318 of the Crimes Act of 1900, it is illegal to make or use a fake official document to get around the law. This is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. To prove the crime, the prosecution has to prove a number of facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that, the person is entitled to be set free. There are also a number of ways to defend yourself in court if you are charged with the crime. If you have been charged with making or using a fake official document to pervert the course of justice, you can call Sydney Criminal Lawyers at any time at (02) 9261 8881 to set up a free first meeting with an experienced criminal defence lawyer who will look over the accusations and tell you what your options are and the best way to move forward. Read on to learn more about the laws surrounding the crime, including what the crime is, what the prosecution has to prove, what your options are, how you can defend yourself, and what the penalties are. The Laws What is the crime of making or using a fake official document to change the way justice is done? Under section 318 of the Crimes Act of 1900, it is illegal to make or use a fake official document to get around the law. Section 318(2) says that a person is guilty of making a false official document to get around the law if: Makes a copy of a document that he or she knows is a fake official document, or makes a copy of a document that he or she knows is a fake official document. The person does this with the intention of getting someone else to accept the document as real or the copy as a real official document. Section 318(3) says that a person is guilty of perverting the course of justice by using a fake official document if he or she: makes use of a tool, Knows the document was a fake official document or a copy of a fake official document, tries to get someone else to accept the document as real or the copy as a real official document, and plans to change the way the law works if the person accepts the document. An "official instrument" is one that is made or given out by a public official or by a court. A "public officer" is someone who has any power, authority, duty, or function given to them by any level of the Australian government or delegated by any level of the Australian government. A "judicial tribunal" can be a person, like a coroner or arbitrator, a court, or any other group that is allowed by law or by the agreement of the parties to hold a hearing to decide something. A "false document" is something that claims to be: Made in a form or with terms by someone who didn't make it in that form or with those terms. Made in a form or with terms, or changed in any way, on authority, by someone who didn't have authority or didn't exist. Made or changed on the wrong date or at the wrong place. Section 312 of the Act says that "perverting the course of justice" means to "obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice or the administration of the law." Some examples of tampering with the course of justice are: Trying to pay off a police officer or a judge to avoid being charged or punished, swearing or saying that someone else did something wrong when they didn't, Using someone else's phone or email to make up a defence for a crime. Encouraging or paying someone to plead guilty to a crime they didn't do, give a fake alibi, or lie in court. What is the punishment? If you make or use a fake official document to get around the law, you could spend up to 14 years in prison. But it's important to remember that this is the maximum sentence that can be given and that the court can choose from any of the following: Section 10: Order of Dismissal with Conditions Fine Order for Community Service Order for Strict Punishment Less time in prison What Does the Government Need to Show? For a person to be found guilty of section 318(2)'s "making a false official instrument to pervert the course of justice," the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following "elements" of the crime: The defendant made a fake official document or a copy of a document he or she knew was a fake official document. The defendant did this with the intention of getting someone else to accept the document as real or the copy as a real official document. The defendant intended for this acceptance to change the way justice was done. If the prosecution can't prove each of these things to the required level, the case will be dropped. For a person to be found guilty of section 318(3)'s "using a false official instrument to pervert the course of justice," the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following "elements" of the crime: The defendant used a document that he or she knew was a fake official document or a copy of a fake official document. The defendant knew it was a fake official document or a copy of a fake official document. The defendant did this on purpose to get someone else to accept the document as real or to accept the copy as a real official document. Again, the case will be dropped if the prosecution can't prove each of these things to the required level. How do you defend yourself? In addition to having to prove each part of the crime, the prosecution must also refute any of the following defences if they are raised in a proper way: Duress is when you were scared or forced to do something. Necessity, in which the act was done to avoid danger, and Self-Defense, in which the act was done to protect yourself or someone else. It must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these defences don't work. Your Choices in Court Not Guilty Plea Before you can be found guilty under section 318(2) of making a false official document to obstruct the course of justice, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: You made a fake official document, or you made a copy of a fake official document that you knew was fake. You did this on purpose to get someone else to accept the document as real, or to accept the copy as real, and you intended for that acceptance to change the way justice works. There are several ways to defend making false official instrument charges, such as saying: The prosecution can't prove that you made an instrument or made a copy of an instrument. They also can't prove that any instrument you made or copied was an official one. The prosecution can't show that the original document or its copy was a "false" official document. The prosecution can't prove that you knew the document you made or copied was fake. The prosecution can't show that you meant for your actions to make someone accept the original or a copy as real. The prosecution can't prove that you accepted something with the intent to change the way justice works, or you have a good legal defence that the prosecution can't prove isn't true. If any of these things happen, you should not be found guilty of the crime. Before you can be found guilty of section 318(3)'s charge of using a fake official document to get around the law, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: You used an official document that you knew was a fake, or you used a copy of a fake official document that you knew was a fake. You did this on purpose to get someone else to accept the document as real, or the copy as real, and you meant for that acceptance to change the way justice works. There are a number of ways to defend yourself against charges of using a fake official document. The prosecution can't prove that you used an official instrument or a copy of one. The prosecution can't prove that the official document or copy you used was "false." The prosecution can't prove that you knew the official document or copy you used was a fake, The prosecution can't show that you meant for your actions to make someone accept the original or a copy as real. The prosecution can't prove that you accepted something with the intent to change the way justice works, or you have a good legal defence that the prosecution can't prove isn't true. Again, any of these things must happen for you to be found not guilty of the crime. A good lawyer will be able to write to the prosecution to try to get the case against you dropped, or they will fight to get it thrown out of court if it goes to a hearing or trial. Taking the blame You might decide to plead guilty to the crime if the evidence against you is very strong. In that case, your lawyer might be able to talk with the police about the "facts" to make the crime less serious. Your lawyer can also help you get materials that can be given to the court during your sentencing, such as a letter of apology, references from people who know you well, and any documents from therapists or doctors you have seen. Together, these pieces of evidence and your lawyer's convincing arguments in court can help make sure you get the lightest sentence possible given the situation. By pleading guilty early, you could get a "discount" of up to 25% on your sentence. This could mean that you get a less severe punishment, like a section 10 dismissal or a conditional release order, instead of a harsher one. You will also save time, money, and stress by not having to go to a hearing or trial to defend yourself.

Section 316A(1) of the Crimes Act of 1900 makes it a crime to hide a child abuse crime. The maximum penalty for this crime is: 2 years in prison if the maximum prison sentence for hiding child abuse was less than 5 years 5 years in prison if the maximum prison sentence for hiding child abuse was 5 years or more. To prove the crime, the prosecution has to prove a number of facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that, the person is entitled to be set free. There are also a number of ways to defend yourself in court if you are charged with the crime. The Law What is Hiding a Crime Against a Child? Section 316A(1) of the Crimes Act of 1900 makes it a crime to hide a child abuse crime. The maximum penalty for this crime is: 2 years in prison if the maximum prison sentence for hiding child abuse was less than 5 years 5 years in prison if the maximum prison sentence for hiding child abuse was 5 years or more. In this section, it says that a person has broken the law if he or she: Was an adult Knew, thought, or should have known that a crime against a child had been committed Knew, thought, or should have known that he or she had information that could help catch, prosecute, or convict the criminal Didn't tell a NSW police officer about the information as soon as possible after getting it didn't have a good reason for not doing so. Section 316A makes it clear that telling someone about a crime of child abuse is not unprofessional or a breach of professional ethics. It also doesn't make you liable in a civil case, like for defamation, if you told someone in good faith. It also says that a prosecution can't start without the DPP's permission if the information came from certain professions, callings, and vocations. These include doctors, lawyers, and people in the clergy. A child abuse offence is: a) The murder or manslaughter of a child, including infanticide under section 22A of the Act. b) Any of the following crimes where the victim is a child: I Murder with the intent to kill, as defined by Section 27 of the Act, which includes giving someone a poison or something that will hurt them, or making them seriously hurt or kill them. (ii) Under Section 29 of the Act, trying to kill someone by giving them a poison or something that will hurt them, shooting at or firing a gun, drowning, suffocating, or strangling them with the intent to kill, (iii) Intentional wounding or serious bodily harm under section 33, (iv) Section 35 reckless wounding or serious bodily harm, (v) Section 37: Choking, strangulation, or suffocation (vi) Using a drug that makes you drunk to commit a felony under Section 38, (vii) Spiking food or drink in violation of Section 38A, (viii) Using poison to put someone's life in danger or cause serious bodily harm, which is against section 39, (ix) Using poison to hurt or upset someone, which is against section 41, (x) Poisoning the water supply in violation of Section 41A, (xi) Not giving people the things they need to live, as stated in Section 44, (xii) Female genital mutilation under section 45, (xiii) Removing a person from the state for female genital mutilation under Section 45A, (xiv) Injuring a person with gunpowder, which is against section 46, (xv) Assault causing real bodily harm under section 59, (xvi) Assaults in schools, according to section 60E, (xvii) Abduction according to section 86, (xviii) Voyeurism under section 91J (xix) Sexual assault under section 61i, (xx) Assault on a woman with a weapon under section 61J, (xxi) Section 61JA aggravated sexual assault in company, (xxii) Assault with the intent to have a sexual act under Section 61K, (xxiii) Sections 61KC, 66DA, and 66DB talk about sexual touching. (xxiv) Section 61KD, aggravated sexual touching, (xxv) Acts of sexuality listed in sections 61KE, 66DC, and 66DD, (xxvi) Sexual act with serious consequences under sections 61KF and 66DE, (xxvii) Having sexual relations with a child in violation of sections 66A and 66C, (xxviii) Under sections 66B and 66D, if you try to have sexual relations with a child, (xxix) Sexual act for the purpose of making material about child abuse under section 66DF, (xxx) Sexual abuse of a child that goes on for a long time (section 66EA), (xxxi) Getting or preparing a child under 16 for sexual activity that is against the law (section 66EB), (xxxii) Getting or preparing a person for sexual activity with a child under that person's control (section 66EC), (xxxiii) Sexual contact with a minor in a special case, as described in Sections 73 and 73A, (xxxiv) Incest under section 78A (xxxv) Section 78B, attempted incest, (xxxvi) Sexual assault by forced self-manipulation, which is a violation of section 80A; (xxxvii) sexual servitude, which is a violation of section 80D; (xxxviii) Business dealings that involve sexual servitude under Section 80E, (xxxix) Incitement to commit sexual servitude under section 80G, (xl) Under Section 91D, promoting or taking part in acts of child prostitution, (xli) Getting money from child prostitution, which is a violation of section 91E, and (xlii) using a place for child prostitution, which is a violation of section 91F. (c) Any of the crimes below: I Injuring a child at birth (section 42), (ii) Leaving a child under 7 years old alone or in a dangerous place (section 43), (iii) Not taking care of a child as a parent should under Section 43A, (iv) Using a child to make child abuse material, which is against the law under section 91G, and (v) making, spreading, or having child abuse material, which is against the law under section 91H. (d) Sexual crimes committed in the past that involved a child, (e) Attempts to commit any of the above crimes, and (f) Crimes from the past that are very similar to any of the above crimes. What is the punishment? The worst punishment for hiding a crime of child abuse is: 2 years in prison if the maximum prison sentence for hiding child abuse was less than 5 years 5 years in prison if the maximum prison sentence for hiding child abuse was 5 years or more. But it's important to remember that this is the maximum sentence that can be given and that the court can choose from any of the following: Section 10 Community Correction Order Fine Conditional Release Order for Dismissal Order for Strict Punishment Less time in prison What does the prosecution need to prove? For a person to be found guilty of hiding a child abuse crime, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the following "elements" of the crime were met by the defendant: Was an adult, knew, thought, or should have known that a crime against a child had been committed, knew, thought, or should have known that he or she had information that could help catch, prosecute, or convict the criminal, Didn't tell a NSW police officer about the information as soon as possible after getting it, and didn't have a good reason for not doing so. If the prosecution can't prove each of these things to the required level, the case will be dropped. How do you defend yourself? In addition to having to prove each part of the crime, the prosecution must also refute any of the following defences if they are raised in a proper way: Duress is when you were scared or forced to do something. Necessity, in which the act was done to avoid danger Self-Defense, in which the act was done to protect yourself or someone else. It must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these defences don't work. You can also show that you had a "reasonable excuse" for what you did. This includes situations like: You had a good reason to think that the police already had the information You told the police about the information through another law, like the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the Children's Guardian Act 2019, or Part 3A of the Ombudsman Act 1974 before it was thrown out, or you had a good reason to think that someone else had done so, You had good reason to worry about someone's safety if you told anyone about the information. When you got the information, you were under 18 years old, When you got the information, the alleged victim was an adult, and you had a good reason to think he or she didn't want it reported, or The details were about a fight at a school, and: There was only a small injury as a result. Both sides were school kids younger than 18 years old. You worked at the school You took reasonable steps to tell the incident reporting unit or the principal or governing body if it was a government school. If it was a non-government school, you told the principal or governing body. Your Choices in Court Not Guilty Plea Before you can be found guilty of hiding a child abuse crime, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: You were an adult You knew, thought, or should have known that a child abuse crime had been committed You knew, thought, or should have known that you had information that could help catch, prosecute, or convict the offender You didn't tell a NSW police officer about the information as soon as you could after getting it You didn't have a good reason for not doing so. There are a number of ways to defend yourself against charges of hiding a child abuse crime, such as: The prosecution can't show that you got information that could have helped them catch, prosecute, or convict someone else of a child abuse crime. The prosecution can't show that you were an adult when you got this information. The prosecution can't show that you thought or should have thought that the information you got could be useful in catching, prosecuting, or convicting someone else of a child abuse crime. The prosecution can't prove that you didn't tell a New South Wales police officer about the information you got. If you're accused of telling a New South Wales police officer about the information, but not as soon as you could have, the prosecution can't prove that you didn't tell the officer as soon as you could have. That the prosecution can't show that you didn't have a good reason for what you did. Concerning the last point, the law makes it clear that any of the following is a good reason: You had a good reason to think that the police already knew, You told someone about the information through the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the Children's Guardian Act 2019, or Part 3A of the Ombudsman Act 1974 before it was taken away, or you had a good reason to think that someone else had done so. You had good reason to worry about someone's safety if you told anyone about the information. You were under 18 when you got the information, the alleged victim was an adult when you got the information, and you had a good reason to think he or she didn't want it reported, or The details were about a fight at a school, and: There was only a small injury as a result. Both sides were school kids younger than 18 years old. You worked at the school You took reasonable steps to tell the incident reporting unit or the principal or governing body if it was a government school. If it was a non-government school, you told the principal or governing body. If any of these things are true, you can't be found guilty of the crime. A good lawyer will be able to write to the prosecution to try to get the case against you dropped, or they will fight to get it thrown out of court if it goes to a hearing or trial. Guilty Plea You might decide to plead guilty to the crime if the evidence against you is very strong. In that case, your lawyer might be able to talk with the police about the "facts" to make the crime less serious. Your lawyer can also help you get materials that can be given to the court during your sentencing, such as a letter of apology, references from people who know you well, and any documents from therapists or doctors you have seen. Together, these pieces of evidence and your lawyer's convincing arguments in court can help make sure you get the lightest sentence possible given the situation. By pleading guilty early, you could get a "discount" of up to 25% on your sentence. This could mean that you get a less severe punishment, like a section 10 dismissal or a conditional release order, instead of a harsher one. You will also save time, money, and stress by not having to go to a hearing or trial to defend yourself.

Section 316(1) of the Crimes Act of 1900 makes it illegal to hide a serious indictable crime. The maximum penalty for this crime is: - 2 years in prison if the maximum sentence for the crime they hid was less than 10 years - 3 years in prison if the maximum sentence for the crime they hid was more than 10 years but less than 20 years, or - 5 years in prison, even though the maximum sentence for the crime was more than 20 years. To prove the crime, the prosecution has to prove a number of facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that, the person is entitled to be set free. There are also a number of ways to defend yourself in court if you are charged with the crime. The Law What does it mean to hide a serious indictable crime? Under section 316(1) of the Crimes Act of 1900, it is a crime to hide a serious indictable crime. In this section, it says that a person has broken the law if he or she: - Was an adult at the time - Knew or thought that another person had committed a serious indictable crime - Knew or thought that he or she had information that could help with the arrest prosecution, or conviction of the offender - Didn't tell law enforcement about the information - Had no good reason for not telling them. A "serious indictable offence" is a crime that can get you at least 5 years in prison as a maximum sentence. The covers most assault crimes (except for common assault), as well as other crimes against people (like detaining someone for personal gain or robbing them), drug crimes (except for drug possession), destroying or damaging property, and most crimes of dishonesty (eg larceny, embezzlement, fraud, break and enter etc). For the purposes of this section, child abuse crimes like having a sexual relationship with a child, having child abuse materials, touching a child in a sexual way, etc. are not serious indictable crimes. Section 316A of the Act says that it is a separate crime to hide a crime of child abuse. No charges can be brought against someone for hiding a serious indictable crime without the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), if the relevant information was learned while the person was working as a lawyer or in another prescribed calling, profession, or vocation, like being a priest. What is the punishment? If you try to hide a serious indictable crime, you could get: 2 years in prison if the maximum sentence for the crime they hid was less than 10 years 3 years in prison if the maximum sentence for the crime they hid was more than 10 years but less than 20 years 5 years in prison if the maximum sentence for the crime they hid was more than 20 years. But it's important to remember that these are the most severe punishments that can be given. The court can also use any of the following: -Section 10: Order of Dismissal with Conditions -Fine Order for Community Service -Order for Strict Punishment -Less time in prison What does the prosecution need to prove? For a person to be found guilty of hiding a serious indictable crime, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the following are part of the crime: - The accused was an adult, - The defendant knew or thought that another person had committed a serious indictable crime. - The defendant knew or thought that he or she had information that could help with the arrest, prosecution, or conviction of the offender for that crime. The defendant did not tell law enforcement about that information. The defendant had no good reason for not telling law enforcement about that information. If the prosecution can't prove each of these things to the required level, the case will be dropped. A "serious indictable offence" is a crime that can get you at least 5 years in prison as a maximum sentence. The crime does not include hiding a crime of child abuse, such as sexual contact with a child, child abuse material, or sexual contact with a child. Section 316A makes it a separate crime to hide these kinds of crimes. Without the DPP's permission, no charges can be brought against an Australian lawyer or a member of the clergy. What are the defences? Your Choices in Court Not Guilty Plea Before you can be found guilty of hiding a serious indictable crime, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: - You were an adult - You knew or thought that another person had committed a serious indictable crime - You knew or thought that he or she had information that could help with the arrest, prosecution, or conviction of the offender for that crime - You didn't tell law enforcement about that information - You didn't have a good reason for not telling them. You can defend yourself against a charge of hiding a serious indictable crime in a number of ways. For example, you can say: - The government can't show that you were an adult at the time, - The prosecution can't prove that you knew or thought that another person had committed a serious crime. - The prosecution can't show that you knew or thought that he or she had information that could have helped catch or convict the criminal. - The prosecution can't prove you didn't tell law enforcement about that information. - The prosecution can't prove that you didn't tell law enforcement about the information because you had a good reason not to. - You were a lawyer, a member of the clergy, or someone else on the list, and you were charged without the DPP's permission. - - - You have a good legal defence that the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If any of these things happen, you should not be found guilty of the crime. A good lawyer will be able to write to the prosecution to try to get the case against you dropped, or they will fight to get it thrown out of court if it goes to a hearing or trial. Guilty Plea You might decide to plead guilty to the crime if the evidence against you is very strong. In that case, your lawyer might be able to talk with the police about the "facts" to make the crime less serious. Your lawyer can also help you get materials that can be given to the court during your sentencing, such as a letter of apology, references from people who know you well, and any documents from therapists or doctors you have seen. Together, these pieces of evidence and your lawyer's convincing arguments in court can help make sure you get the lightest sentence possible given the situation. By pleading guilty early, you could get a "discount" of up to 25% on your sentence. This could mean that you get a less severe punishment, like a section 10 dismissal or a conditional release order, instead of a harsher one. You will also save time, money, and stress by not having to go to a hearing or trial to defend yourself.