R v Crowden and Lambert

The case of R v Crowden and Lambert involved defendants who were charged with an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm, under sections 339(1) and (3) of the Criminal Code. The charges included allegations that the defendants were both “vicious lawless associates” and that one of them was an “office bearer of the relevant association”, by reference to the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld) (VLAD Act) in June 2019, after the repeal of the VLAD Act. The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendants could still be punished for the acts in question under the VLAD Act, given its repeal.

The court had to determine if the repeal of the VLAD Act affected the previous operation of the Act and whether the defendants could still be held liable for the offence under the repealed Act. The court examined section 20(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act, which provides that the repeal of an Act does not affect a penalty incurred in relation to an offence arising under the Act. The court also considered section 11 of the Criminal Code, which requires that the law in force at the time of conviction be applied, and section 20(2)(c) and (d) of the Acts Interpretation Act, which address the saving of the operation of repealed Acts. The court concluded that the penalties incurred under the VLAD Act were still valid because they were incurred at the time the offence was committed, prior to the Act's repeal.

The court ruled that the repeal of the VLAD Act did not prevent the defendants from being punished for the acts in question under the Act, as the penalties were incurred prior to the repeal and were saved by operation of section 20(2)(d) of the Acts Interpretation Act. The court determined that the law in force at the time of conviction included the potential liability saved by operation of section 20(2)(d), which encompassed the additional punishment provided for under the repealed VLAD Act. The court's decision was consistent with previous cases such as R v HXY & Ors [2017] QSC 108 and R v PAZ [2018] 3 Qd R 50.

In summary, the court held that the defendants could be punished for the acts in question under the VLAD Act, notwithstanding its repeal, because the penalties were incurred prior to the repeal and were saved by section 20(2)(d) of the Acts Interpretation Act. The court's decision ensured that the defendants could not escape liability for the offence by virtue of the VLAD Act's repeal.