If I'm on bail and I skip it, will there just be an arrest warrant or will they go looking for me?
QLD Skipping Bail - Will I Get an Arrest Warrant?
- Thread starter freddylol99
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arrest warrant bail
Ignore @Adam1user. As he says, he's not a lawyer, and is not qualified to comment on your question.
In short and simple, what happens can depend on what kind of bail you are on.
If you are on conditional bail, and you breach (any of) the conditions
(such as being required to live at X address while on bail, or
being required to report to Y police station a number of times per week),
then you can be arrested for that, and dealt with separately from the offence you're on bail for.
How hard the police will try to find you will vary according to the facts and circumstances of the case and the offender.
But, even if they don't send tactical police through your front door at 4am,
you can reasonably expect to be arrested the next time you come under notice of police.
Which could be something as simple as your next RBT stop.
If you are on unconditional bail, and you simply don't turn up to court on the day,
then a warrant can be issued for your arrest.
This will be enforceable anywhere in Australia (the states have cross-enforcement deals).
So, for example, yes, you can be arrested in Queensland on a Tasmanian warrant.
How hard the police will try to find you will vary according to the facts and circumstances of the case and the offender.
It's also possible that your name will be placed on a list so that you won't be allowed to board a flight (or a ship) out of the country.
Even if you do manage to get out, then you can still be arrested in lots of countries, and brought back to Australia.
This is called "extradition".
This also varies according to the facts and circumstances of the case and the offender.
Bottom line: Don't breach your bail.
Wow Tim, you really are pissed off.
You don't accept that you are wrong and you are a lawyer! you did not give sound opinions to my issue and I proved you wrong and now you are pissed off and attacking me in every post!
You were wrong in my case and you gave wrong opinions! I was right and I got a better result in my court decision. If I listened to you; I would've been out of pocket of $330, had 3 points on my record and lost some benefits of having a clean driving record. (What a great advice you gave!, it really really helped me a lot).
For people who don't know what I'm talking about please see:
NSW - Riding a Scooter in Car Park Without a Helmet?
I love all your long legal terminology (it puts me to sleep every time)! And you stated to ignore my comment and pleeeeease what was your "Bottom line" opinion! Same as mine and I am not a lawyer. (By the way I wrote in one line!).
The bottom line is that freddylol99 should not ignore the bail and attend to it, otherwise he will be wanted by the police. This is what he was asking, whether they come promptly or put an arrest warrant, it will not go away! This is the key point. [ why you did not write : "clarification" or "further to xxx's comment"??? but "ignore", that should show you are pissed off]
I seriously doubt you are a lawyer at all! [don't bother proving it to me, i'm not interested]
I don't attack you or did attack you, you really are pissed! Keep on being pissed. It does not affect me at all.
Be adult and let it go.
Save me the trouble of keeping putting you down every time!
@Adam1user - Pull your head in. For a start, your flippant statement can easily be taken the wrong way. I know it was sarcastic, and you rectified it in the next line, but some people don't understand the sarcasm - especially in text. And, especially if they're reading what they want to hear. You also didn't answer OP's question.
Please take my next comments in the spirit in which they are intended - constructive criticism. I do apologise if it seems personal, but the bulk of these comments are really directed towards multiple people who post on this site (but in which you are included).
Dragging out previous posts, making derogatory comments, and then saying "I don't attack you" is childish and plainly wrong. Also saying you doubt someone is a lawyer and then saying you don't care. Surely you're better than that. If nothing else, the people with the "verified" banner under their names are just that - verified. This means, for example, their details are checked against law society records. Want to check mine? Feel free - www.qls.com.au and go to "Find a solicitor".
The thing is that you carry on like you know what's what in terms of law, but you clearly don't. If anything, I'd say you know enough to be dangerous. Add a dose of luck, or a small sample size (or both), and it tends to create a large dose of bravado. I think that it also fits within what is known as 'confirmation bias'. Having a stab and getting it right doesn't make you knowledgeable - it makes you lucky. There's a huge difference. And just because something works for you does not mean it will work for someone else. Some people will never believe or understand that.
I liken it to the medical field. Some person has a good result on a particular unregulated substance and says everyone should use it, it works, and the doctors don't know what they're on about. But they don't understand why it worked. There might be something peculiar in them that allowed it to work. It might be something that a lot of other people are allergic to. It could be potentially deadly. Now if the medical profession endorsed it and someone died, what do you think is going to happen?
The thing is law is an 'art', not a 'science'. There are a huge range of factors that can determine the outcome. There's a saying that you can't call yourself an experienced lawyer until you've 'lost the unloseable, and won the unwinnable'. Just ask a family law practitioner - in my understanding it's part of the reason why there's little to no precedent in family law matters.
Also, and this is a message to everyone on this site, the comments we lawyers give here is not 'advice' in the professional sense. We clearly state so in our signature text at the bottom of our posts. We can't give advice without a proper consideration of all relevant factors, and there is no possible way that can be done here. What we give is generalised information to point someone in the right direction.
Please take my next comments in the spirit in which they are intended - constructive criticism. I do apologise if it seems personal, but the bulk of these comments are really directed towards multiple people who post on this site (but in which you are included).
Dragging out previous posts, making derogatory comments, and then saying "I don't attack you" is childish and plainly wrong. Also saying you doubt someone is a lawyer and then saying you don't care. Surely you're better than that. If nothing else, the people with the "verified" banner under their names are just that - verified. This means, for example, their details are checked against law society records. Want to check mine? Feel free - www.qls.com.au and go to "Find a solicitor".
The thing is that you carry on like you know what's what in terms of law, but you clearly don't. If anything, I'd say you know enough to be dangerous. Add a dose of luck, or a small sample size (or both), and it tends to create a large dose of bravado. I think that it also fits within what is known as 'confirmation bias'. Having a stab and getting it right doesn't make you knowledgeable - it makes you lucky. There's a huge difference. And just because something works for you does not mean it will work for someone else. Some people will never believe or understand that.
I liken it to the medical field. Some person has a good result on a particular unregulated substance and says everyone should use it, it works, and the doctors don't know what they're on about. But they don't understand why it worked. There might be something peculiar in them that allowed it to work. It might be something that a lot of other people are allergic to. It could be potentially deadly. Now if the medical profession endorsed it and someone died, what do you think is going to happen?
The thing is law is an 'art', not a 'science'. There are a huge range of factors that can determine the outcome. There's a saying that you can't call yourself an experienced lawyer until you've 'lost the unloseable, and won the unwinnable'. Just ask a family law practitioner - in my understanding it's part of the reason why there's little to no precedent in family law matters.
Also, and this is a message to everyone on this site, the comments we lawyers give here is not 'advice' in the professional sense. We clearly state so in our signature text at the bottom of our posts. We can't give advice without a proper consideration of all relevant factors, and there is no possible way that can be done here. What we give is generalised information to point someone in the right direction.
Hello Rob,
I appreciate your comment and no insult taken. I am with you. But Tim keeps always bringing back the helmet issue. I did not. Every post I write, he refers back to it. I don't. Even in that post he claimed that I am above the law, and I am a "God" not literally but in the meaning of what he wrote, even though I stated clearly my points and showing the facts but he went overboard. His advice or recommendation in my post would have put me out of pocket $330, 3 points on my record and loss of benefits of having a clean driving record.
I did not insult him in any way until he started it, even though I let it go and then in other posts he keeps referring to it.
As you mentioned that on this we only give an advice to assist, who ever posts can write back to question anyone who responds to the post, that is his right, but just to state to ignore someone and the "bottom line" advice is the same as mine, then there is something wrong, I did state in my answer to him a better way to write (writing : "clarification" or "further to xxxx's comment"), this way it shows that it is assisting and not attacking but to write "ignore"?.
I am happy to admit if I am wrong but hate it when someone thinks themselves as a "GOD", please read again the comments under my post (helmet issue) and you will understand why I am taking this approach, even there was other post which I really thanked Tim and I wrote specifically that I was not sarcastic so he knows I was not making fun of my response to him, and then after that, he goes and attacks me.
I do understand your point of view and if you are in touch with Tim, asks him to be an adult about it. I am not childish, I am just answering back to someone who just did not let it go.
@Adam1user: I don't want to derail this thread, but I think your self-suggestion to count to 20 before writing back is a good one - to be honest I do it myself in many instances of my life (and not just here, for example). In saying this, I note that Tim's post above makes no mention of the helmet issue. The only one who has raised it here is yourself.
Hey Freddylol99,
I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in the area of Criminal Law for many years and if you really want to know, then yes, the police will chase you. As soon as a warrant is issued, it is detailed, apart from being registered on the National Police System, to a Police Officer at a Station closest to your last know place of residence.
That Police Officer has to either, as the saying goes, 'Get the money or the body' (some warrants are for monetary penalties only and not arrest warrants) and has no way of getting rid of the warrant unless he executes it or finds out you've moved address, whereupon it will be forwarded to another Station, when the process will begin again. So, in short, you will be hunted and you will eventually be caught, probably when it's the most inconvenient time for you to be caught as is usually the case.
I strongly suggest you take Tim's opinion and don't breach bail as he has given you a very good explanation of bail. What sort of a life are you going to have if every time there's a knock at the front door you're running out the back door? It'll cost you less in the long run and may save you having a holiday at the Queen's Pleasure.
Cheers,
I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in the area of Criminal Law for many years and if you really want to know, then yes, the police will chase you. As soon as a warrant is issued, it is detailed, apart from being registered on the National Police System, to a Police Officer at a Station closest to your last know place of residence.
That Police Officer has to either, as the saying goes, 'Get the money or the body' (some warrants are for monetary penalties only and not arrest warrants) and has no way of getting rid of the warrant unless he executes it or finds out you've moved address, whereupon it will be forwarded to another Station, when the process will begin again. So, in short, you will be hunted and you will eventually be caught, probably when it's the most inconvenient time for you to be caught as is usually the case.
I strongly suggest you take Tim's opinion and don't breach bail as he has given you a very good explanation of bail. What sort of a life are you going to have if every time there's a knock at the front door you're running out the back door? It'll cost you less in the long run and may save you having a holiday at the Queen's Pleasure.
Cheers,
Similar threads
