{"id":"BILL-QLD-criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026","name":"Criminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill 2026","slug":"criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"qld","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":"2026-01-01","administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446068,"registerId":"BILL-QLD-criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026:current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-01-01","status":"in_force","reasons":null,"registeredAt":"2026-05-06T12:45:08.644Z"},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"retrieval-0001","sectionType":"document_chunk","heading":"Document excerpt 1","content":"# Criminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill 2026\n\nQueensland\nCriminal Code (Defence of\nDwellings and Other\nPremises—Castle Law)\nAmendment Bill 2026\n\nQueensland\nCriminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and\nOther Premises—Castle Law) Amendment\nBill 2026\nContents\nPage\n1 Short title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n2 Code amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n3 Replacement of s 267 (Defence of dwelling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n267 Defence of dwelling or other premises . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n4 Insertion of new pt 9, ch 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\nChapter 115 Transitional provision for Criminal Code (Defence of\nDwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law)\nAmendment Act 2026\n772 Use of force in defence of dwelling or other premises 6\n\n2026\nA Bill\nfor\nAn Act to amend the Criminal Code for particular purposes\n\n[s 1]\nCriminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill\n2026\nPage 4\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\nThe Parliament of Queensland enacts—\n1 Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Criminal Code (Defence of\nDwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Act\n2026.\n2 Code amended\nThis Act amends the Criminal Code.\n3 Replacement of s 267 (Defence of dwelling)\nSection 267—\nomit, insert—\n267 Defence of dwelling or other premises\n(1) It is lawful for the owner or occupier of a dwelling\nor other premises, and a person helping the owner\nor occupier or acting under the owner’s or\noccupier’s direction, to use force against another\nperson (the intruder) if the person using the force\nreasonably believes the force is necessary to\nprevent the intruder from—\n(a) unlawfully entering the dwelling or other\npremises; or\n(b) unlawfully remaining in the dwelling or\nother premises.\n(2) However, this section does not authorise the use\nof force that is intended or is likely to cause the\ndeath of, or grievous bodily harm to, the intruder\nunless—\n(a) the intruder—\n(i) enters or attempts to enter the dwelling\nor other premises in the night; or\n1\nClause 2\n3\n4\n5\nClause 6\n7\nClause 8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n\n[s 4]\nCriminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill\n2026\nPage 5\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n(ii) uses or threatens to use actual violence;\nor\n(iii) is or pretends to be armed with a\ndangerous or offensive weapon or\ninstrument, or a noxious substance; or\n(iv) is in company with 1 or more persons;\nor\n(v) damages, or threatens or attempts to\ndamage, any property; or\n(b) the person using the force reasonably\nbelieves that—\n(i) the intruder is attempting to enter, or to\nremain in, the dwelling or other\npremises with intent to commit an\nindictable offence in the dwelling or\nother premises and the force is\nnecessary to prevent the commission of\nthe offence; or\n(ii) the use of the force is necessary to\nprevent the death of, or bodily harm to,\nthe person or another person.\n4 Insertion of new pt 9, ch 115\nPart 9—\ninsert—\nChapter 115 Transitional provision\nfor Criminal Code\n(Defence of Dwellings\nand Other\nPremises—Castle Law)\nAmendment Act 2026\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\nClause 22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n\n[s 4]\nCriminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill\n2026\nPage 6\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n772 Use of force in defence of dwelling or other\npremises\n(1) Despite the Criminal Code (Defence of Dwellings\nand Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment\nAct 2026, former section 267 continues to apply in\nrelation to a use of force before the\ncommencement.\n(2) New section 267 applies in relation to a use of\nforce after the commencement.\n(3) In this section—\nformer section 267 means section 267 as in force\nfrom time to time before the commencement.\nnew section 267 means section 267 as in force\nfrom the commencement.\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Yes. The Bill broadens the original defence-of-dwelling rule in several concrete ways: it extends the protection from \"dwelling\" to \"dwelling or other premises\" (expanding the physical scope); it expressly authorises persons \"helping\" or \"acting under the owner’s or occupier’s direction\" to use force (expanding the class of defenders); and it widens the factual triggers that permit force that may cause death or grievous bodily harm (for example, allowing such force where the intruder damages or threatens to damage property, is in company with others, or \"pretends to be armed\"). These changes materially expand the circumstances in which serious defensive force may be lawful compared with the prior single-section defence of a dwelling."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-section substantive replacement (one replaced section: s 267)","One transitional clause (ch 115, s 772) preserving old law for pre-commencement acts","Multiple conditional limbs for deadly/grievous-force in s 267(2) (two alternative limbs: (a) factual triggers with five sub-items; (b) belief about intent to commit an indictable offence or preventing death/bodily harm)","Use of open, interpretive standards: repeated \"reasonably believes\" tests","Several potentially ambiguous terms left undefined: \"other premises\", \"night\", \"pretends to be armed\", \"in company with 1 or more persons\""],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Bill changes (mechanics)\n\n- Replaces the existing single section about defending a dwelling with a new section titled \"Defence of dwelling or other premises.\" (s 267)\n- Says an owner or occupier of a dwelling or other premises — and a person helping them or acting under their direction — may lawfully use force against someone they reasonably believe is unlawfully entering or remaining. (s 267(1))\n- Limits when force that is intended or likely to cause death or very serious injury (grievous bodily harm) is allowed. Deadly or grievous-force is only authorised if one of two sets of conditions is met: either (a) certain facts about the intruder are present (night entry; actual or threatened violence; being or pretending to be armed; being with others; damaging or threatening to damage property), or (b) the defender reasonably believes the intruder intends to commit an indictable offence in the premises or the force is necessary to prevent death or bodily harm to themselves or another. (s 267(2)(a)–(b))\n- Keeps the old version of s 267 applicable to uses of force that happened before the new law starts; the new s 267 applies after commencement. (Transitional provision, ch 115, s 772)\n\nWho this affects\n\n- Owners and occupiers of dwellings and \"other premises\" (the text does not narrowly define \"other premises\"). (s 267(1))\n- People who assist or act under the direction of an owner/occupier (they share the same legal authorisation). (s 267(1))\n- People who unlawfully enter or remain (labelled \"intruders\" in the Bill) and anyone assessing or prosecuting a use of force (police, prosecutors, courts).\n- Private security businesses, landlords, insurers and property managers, because the rules change who may lawfully use force and in what circumstances.\n\nWhy it matters (stated purpose and practical effects)\n\n- The text is framed to broaden and clarify when people may use force to protect their premises (often described as \"castle law\"). The Bill explicitly extends the lawful-defence rule to \"other premises\" (not just dwellings) and clarifies circumstances when deadly or grievous-force is permitted. (s 267)\n\nAnalytical note on incentives, costs and implementation trade-offs\n\n- Who decides and who pays: Whether a use of force is lawful will typically be decided later by police, prosecutors and courts applying the \"reasonable belief\" standard in the text. The immediate decision rests with the private person using force; legal costs, criminal exposure and civil litigation costs fall on the user of force (and potentially on victims or their families).\n- Behavioural incentives: Because the statute explicitly authorises helpers and people acting under direction (s 267(1)), more people may feel entitled to intervene on behalf of an occupier. Expanding protection to \"other premises\" may encourage occupants or staff at non‑residential sites to use force where they previously would have relied on calling police.\n- Threshold for deadly force: The Bill allows deadly or grievous-force in a wider set of factual circumstances than laws that limit such force to preventing death or serious injury alone. Notably, property damage or threats to damage property (s 267(2)(a)(v)) and being in company with others (s 267(2)(a)(iv)) are standalone triggers in limb (a). That creates a lower bar (in some scenarios) for using force that can cause death or grievous bodily harm, compared with laws that require an imminent threat to life.\n- Evidentiary and implementation risk: The core standard is \"reasonably believes\" (s 267(1), s 267(2)(b)) — a fact‑sensitive, retrospective assessment. Courts will need to interpret terms such as \"other premises,\" \"night,\" \"pretends to be armed,\" and what it means to be \"in company with 1 or more persons.\" That invites litigation and inconsistent outcomes until courts clarify those meanings.\n- Enforcement and compliance burden: Police and prosecutors will have to investigate and assess the genuineness and reasonableness of beliefs and whether the statutory triggers for deadly force were actually present. This increases early decision costs for agencies and may raise the volume of contested cases reaching court.\n- Effects on private choice and markets: Landlords, employers and security firms may change policies (training, use-of-force rules, signage) in response. Insurers may adjust premiums or coverage for occupiers who authorise helpers to use force. There is potential for substitution away from calling police toward private defensive action in some contexts.\n- Trade-offs and opportunity costs: The Bill prioritises clearer legal cover for defensive action at the possible expense of increased risk of violent encounters and of disputes over hindsight assessments of \"reasonableness.\" The expanded triggers for serious force (including property damage) reduce the legal restraint that otherwise limits lethal force to situations where life or bodily integrity is at risk.\n\nPractical points to watch (implementation and legal interpretation)\n\n- The undefined scope of \"other premises\" and the meaning of \"night\" will be important in future cases. (s 267)\n- How courts treat \"pretends to be armed\" and \"in company with 1 or more persons\" will determine how far those facts permissibly lower the threshold for deadly force. (s 267(2)(a)(iii)–(iv))\n- The transitional clause means conduct before commencement is assessed under the old law; only conduct after commencement is judged by the new rules. (ch 115, s 772)\n\nReference to statutory provisions: key changes are in the replacement s 267 and the transitional provision ch 115, s 772."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026","history":"/api/acts/criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026/history","analysis":"/api/acts/criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/criminal-code-defence-of-dwellings-and-other-premises-castle-law-amendment-bill-2026/documents"}}