7 July 2026 Mention Update
Defendant Trevor Hold: Director Hold Technologies Pty Ltd, Trading as Genesis Novel Pastures and Agriculture, Amber Resolve, Australian Advocacy Group and The Australian Advocate.
A complaint was made before a Magistrate that the defendant obstructed police under section 790(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act Qld, during a fire ant operation on 16 April 2025, when 16 Biosecurity Officers from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program (‘NFAEP’ or ‘Program’), run by Biosecurity Qld, Department of Primary Industries, Qld (‘DPI’ or ‘DPI Qld’), and supported by 5 armed police officers, forced entry onto the defendant’s private organically certified property and baited his property with the pesticide product ‘Engage’, consisting of S-Methoprene (active ingredient), GMO corn grit and GMO soy.
Prosecution Basis
Section 16 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act (PPRA), as supplied by the Queensland Police Service Ethical Command:
- while helping a public official, police officers have the same powers and legal protections under the authorising law as the public official being assisted, provided police are advised of the power being exercised.
It is important to note police officers are not required to independently scrutinise or test the validity of another agency’s authority.
On the material available, Biosecurity officers advised police of their authority to enter the property, and police acted in support of that authority. Even if it were later determined that the decision-making of the assisting agency was flawed, this does not of itself render police conduct unlawful in circumstances where officers were acting in good faith when assisting public officials in accordance with section 16 of the PPRA.
Defence Basis
The prosecution submits that, under section 16 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA), police officers assisting authorised biosecurity officers were entitled to rely upon the authority asserted by those officers and were not required to independently investigate or verify the lawfulness of the biosecurity officers’ actions.
The defence accepts that section 16 permits police to assist a public official exercising powers under another Act. However, the defence contends that the police powers conferred by section 16 are entirely derivative. They exist only to the extent that the public official is lawfully exercising a power under the authorising legislation.
Section 16 does not create an independent source of coercive power for police, nor does it validate or cure an exercise of power that is beyond jurisdiction or otherwise unlawful.
Accordingly, if the authorised biosecurity officers were not lawfully exercising a statutory power—for example, because the statutory preconditions for the exercise of that power had not been satisfied, or because the purported authority relied upon was invalid or exercised outside the limits imposed by the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld)—then the police acquired no lawful derivative power under section 16.
The issue before the Court is therefore not whether the police honestly believed the biosecurity officers had authority. The issue is whether the statutory power purportedly exercised by the biosecurity officers lawfully existed at the time police purported to exercise derivative powers under section 16.
A mistaken belief, administrative error, or misunderstanding of the limits of statutory authority cannot enlarge the powers conferred by Parliament. Police acting in good faith cannot, through section 16, confer legality upon conduct that the authorising Act does not permit.
The defence therefore contends that if the Court finds the biosecurity officers acted outside their statutory authority, then the derivative powers relied upon by police necessarily fail. In those circumstances, the alleged obstruction was not an obstruction of the lawful exercise of police powers.
Brief History
A mention was heard on 7 July 2026 following a Voir dire, a hearing conducted in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of expert witness evidence (13 May 2026), to access the readiness of each party, the prosecution and defence, to proceed to trial scheduled for the 22, 23 and 24 July, 2026.
The Voir dire hearing, despite the magistrate confessing she didn’t bother reading the expert reports requested at the previous mention on 25 March, 2026, determined that the expert evidence was inadmissible citing relevence as justification.
The expert witnesses would have provided scientific support and substantiated the ‘reasonableness‘ of my ‘reasonble excuse’. s 336 of the Biosecurity Act (QLD) 2014 provides that you can obstruct if you have a ‘reasonable excuse‘. The defence decided not to appeal the decision excluding the expert witnesses prior to the hearing. We can use this as grounds to appeal the decision should the final hearing not exonerate the defendant.
It was put on record by the defence at the Voir dire on 13 May 2026 that:
‘What we are observing here is persecution of the defendant for having the audacity to shine a light on what appears to be conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office by public officials by the APVMA and DPI Queensland. This is what the Queensland Police, the Federal Police should be investigating, rather than persecuting the defendant.‘
To substantiate these claims, on 29 May 2026, four summons were filed to the court and served to Queensland Police Service prosecution. It is important to note these summons were never served to the addressee of the summons. The addressee’s were Dr Rachel Chay, Ms Marnie Manning, Scott Hansen and Dr Rhian Cope respectively and included the supply of relevant documents.
Correspondence from Jackson Cranitch, Director (Appeals and Prosecutions)
For Department of Primary Industries, who attends the proceedings in person, put the defence on notice that: should you persuade the court to issue such a summons, our client will apply to have that summons set aside pursuant to rule 33 of the Criminal Practice Rules 1999 and will seek orders for costs pursuant to rule 34.
The defence provided no such application to the courts.
On Friday 3 July 2026, a summons was served to Joanne Parker, Team Leader (Laidley) National Fire Ant Eradication Program. Additionally, an instruction from the defence legal team and a $50 money order to assist with transport costs to the hearing.
On Monday 6 July 2026, a summons was served to Bruce Mathews, Principal Investigation and Proactive Assurance Lead, National Fire Ant Eradication Program. Additionally, an instruction from the defence legal team and a $50 money order to assist with transport costs to the hearing.
These two summons were filed with the court and served to Queensland Police Prosecution on the afternoon of Monday 6 July 2026.
At the mention of the 7 July 2026 it was confirmed that Joanne Parker and Bruce Mathews both received their summons to appear and will be required to attend the hearing starting on the 22 July 2026.
The defence withdrew the four summonses addressed respectively to Dr Rachel Chay, Ms Marnie Manning, Mr Scott Hansen and Dr Rhian Cope, including the requests for the production of documents contained within those summonses.
The defence acknowledged that the requests for the production of documents should not have been included in the same summonses and reserved the right to issue and serve fresh summonses upon the named persons, as required and permitted by law.
During the hearing, Jeffrey Hunter KC appeared on behalf of the Department of Primary Industries. Mr Hunter, who had been seated in the public gallery with Mr Jackson Cranitch and two other representatives of the Department, came forward to address the Court. He advised that, should the defence issue summonses to Ms Marnie Manning or Dr Rachel Chay, the Department intended to object to those summonses and that any such objection may delay the proceedings.
Both the defence and prosecution advised the Court that they were ready for trial, which was scheduled to commence on 22 July 2026 and was listed for three days.
To support this campaign you can become a financial member of Australian Advocacy Group and particilpate in community advocacy inititives.
Alternatively, contribute to the crowd fund
https://www.gofundme.com/f/stand-with-me-there-is-a-better-way
Leave a Reply