For those following I have yet to have my day in court. I have written to Senior Sergeant Adam Marre, Officer in Charge, Ipswich Police Prosecutions, Queensland Police Service and wait response. My next mention is the 13 October 2025. I anticipate the date of a hearing will be made at this mention.
Dear Senior Sergeant Marre,
Please find attached my written submission regarding the charge under s. 790 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) arising from events on 16 April 2025.
In summary, the submission outlines:
- The lack of lawful authority for the alleged obstruction, given the context of Biosecurity actions;
- The statutory framework under ss. 18 and 791 PPRA, and the failure to properly consider reasonable excuse;
- Reliance on the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld), including s. 12 (community involvement) and s. 238, 336 (reasonable excuse);
- The outdated and potentially unfit-for-purpose status of the 2016 Red Imported Fire Ant Program Authorisation;
- Human rights and public interest considerations.
I respectfully request that the charge be withdrawn in light of these points. If the matter proceeds, I will be representing myself in court and will rely on the attached submission.
Please confirm receipt of this email and the attached document.
Kind regards,
Trevor Hold
0401 517 906
Official Letter
Dear Senior Sergeant Marre,
Re: Request for Withdrawal of Charge under s. 790 PPRA
I respectfully request that the charges alleging obstruction under s. 790 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA) be discontinued.
My submission is that the charge cannot be sustained on legal or public interest grounds, for the following reasons:
1. Lawfulness of Police Duties under s. 790 PPRA
Section 790 requires proof that the alleged obstruction occurred while police were lawfully ‘performing their duties’. On 16 April 2025, police were assisting Biosecurity Officers under s. 16 PPRA. That authority is derivative; it does not permit police to exceed the powers of the official they assist.
The underlying Biosecurity action was not lawfully authorised, as treatment was attempted without compliance with statutory requirements (including permit conditions and recognition of reasonable excuse under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld)). If the Biosecurity activity was unlawful, police involvement in enforcing it cannot be characterised as lawful ‘performance of duties’ for the purposes of s. 790.
Authorities: Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5; Lewis v Cox [1985] 1 QB 509.
2. Proper Statutory Process: ss. 18 and 791 PPRA
The legislative scheme provides that where police suspect obstruction of a public official, s. 18 PPRA allows inquiry into whether a person has a ‘reasonable excuse’, followed, if necessary, by a direction. Non-compliance with such a direction is dealt with under s. 791 PPRA, which expressly provides for a reasonable excuse defence.
In my case, police did not follow this scheme. No inquiry was made into my reasonable excuse, no direction was issued under s. 18, and yet I was charged directly under s. 790. This mischaracterises the conduct and bypasses the statutory defence Parliament intended.
3. Failure to Observe s. 12 Biosecurity Act – Community Involvement
Section 12 of the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld) requires that the Act be administered, as far as practicable, in consultation with and having regard to the views and interests of affected persons and the community.
On 16 April 2025, no meaningful consultation or consideration of my concerns was undertaken before treatment was attempted. This omission is inconsistent with the statutory purpose and undermines the lawfulness of the actions taken.
4. Reasonable Excuse under the Biosecurity Act and Program Authorisation
The Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld) and the National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program Authorisation (2 June 2016) both recognise that occupiers may refuse compliance where a reasonable excuse exists (see s. 238, 336).
My refusal was based on legitimate concerns for livestock safety, inconsistency with my on-farm Biosecurity Management Plan, and procedural failures by officers at the time. My conduct was calm, measured, and consistent with the Act’s recognition of reasonable excuse.
5. Program Authorisation Not Fit for Purpose
The Prosecution relies on the Prevention and Control Program – Red Imported Fire Ants (2016), authorised under s. 235 of the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld).
This Program is now over nine years old. It was authorised on 2 June 2016 by the Director-General of Agriculture and Fisheries and has never been refreshed, reviewed, or replaced. Unlike other statutory instruments, the Program contains no sunset clause and does not require periodic renewal.
Since 2016, there have been substantial advances in:
- Scientific understanding of fire ant behaviour and control measures,
- Risk assessment methodologies, and
- Operational strategies, reflected in the National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program 2023–2027 Strategic Review and subsequent updates.
Continuing to apply the 2016 Program in 2025 raises serious questions as to whether the authorisation remains lawful, proportionate, and fit for purpose, especially given the requirement in s. 12 of the Biosecurity Act that administration occur with genuine community involvement.
The absence of a sunset clause or mandated review cycle means the Program has drifted far beyond its intended policy and legislative context. It is now inconsistent with the objectives of the Act and current nationally agreed eradication frameworks.
6. Human Rights Considerations
Under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), public entities must respect the right to privacy and home and give proper consideration to human rights in decision-making (ss. 25, 58). No such consideration occurred before entry and attempted treatment.
7. Public Interest
The Prosecution Guidelines provide that matters should proceed only where there is both a reasonable prospect of conviction and a public interest in prosecution. Given the issues above, the charge is unlikely to succeed and does not meet the public interest test.
8. Authority and Evidence I Will Rely Upon if Matter Proceeds
In addition to the points above, I will rely upon the statutory authority governing the Red Imported Fire Ant Program, including the Program Authorisation published by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries:
Prevention and Control Program – Red Imported Fire Ants (2016)
This document confirms the limits of the program, the conditions on authorised officers, and the recognition of occupiers’ reasonable excuses. It also demonstrates that the Program is now outdated, lacks a sunset or review clause, and is inconsistent with contemporary scientific and operational standards.
Conclusion
For all the reasons outlined above, I respectfully submit that the charge under s. 790 PPRA cannot be sustained and should be withdrawn.
If this matter proceeds, I will be representing myself in court and will rely on the above statutory and program authority, as well as the reasonable excuse, s. 12, and program fitness arguments.
Yours sincerely,
Trevor Hold
Leave a Reply