sec.67FAFailing to comply with offender prohibition order

### sec.67FA Failing to comply with offender prohibition order A respondent for an offender prohibition order must not contravene the offender prohibition order, unless the respondent has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—300 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment. An offence against subsection (1) is a crime. If an issue is raised in a proceeding of whether the respondent knew of the offender prohibition order, it is enough if it is proved— the respondent was present in court when the prohibition order was made; or the respondent was served personally with a copy of the prohibition order; or a police officer told the respondent about the existence of the prohibition order. A respondent for a registered corresponding order must not contravene the registered corresponding order, unless the respondent has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—300 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment. An offence against subsection (4) is a crime. If an issue is raised in a proceeding of whether the respondent for a registered corresponding order knew of the registered corresponding order, it is enough if it is proved— the respondent was present in court when the corresponding order was made and the corresponding order stated that it could be registered in another jurisdiction; or the respondent was served personally with a copy of the corresponding order and the order stated that it could be registered in another jurisdiction; or a police officer told the respondent about the existence of the corresponding order, including the fact that the corresponding order could be registered in another jurisdiction; or that the respondent ought to have known that the corresponding order was registered in this jurisdiction. In this section— police officer , for subsection (6) (c) , includes a member of the police force of the jurisdiction where the registered corresponding order was made. s 67FA (prev s 51A) ins 2017 No. 14 s 22 reloc and renum 2023 No. 21 s 21 (sec.67FA-ssec.1) A respondent for an offender prohibition order must not contravene the offender prohibition order, unless the respondent has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—300 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment. (sec.67FA-ssec.2) An offence against subsection (1) is a crime. (sec.67FA-ssec.3) If an issue is raised in a proceeding of whether the respondent knew of the offender prohibition order, it is enough if it is proved— the respondent was present in court when the prohibition order was made; or the respondent was served personally with a copy of the prohibition order; or a police officer told the respondent about the existence of the prohibition order. (sec.67FA-ssec.4) A respondent for a registered corresponding order must not contravene the registered corresponding order, unless the respondent has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—300 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment. (sec.67FA-ssec.5) An offence against subsection (4) is a crime. (sec.67FA-ssec.6) If an issue is raised in a proceeding of whether the respondent for a registered corresponding order knew of the registered corresponding order, it is enough if it is proved— the respondent was present in court when the corresponding order was made and the corresponding order stated that it could be registered in another jurisdiction; or the respondent was served personally with a copy of the corresponding order and the order stated that it could be registered in another jurisdiction; or a police officer told the respondent about the existence of the corresponding order, including the fact that the corresponding order could be registered in another jurisdiction; or that the respondent ought to have known that the corresponding order was registered in this jurisdiction. (sec.67FA-ssec.7) In this section— police officer , for subsection (6) (c) , includes a member of the police force of the jurisdiction where the registered corresponding order was made. - (a) the respondent was present in court when the prohibition order was made; or - (b) the respondent was served personally with a copy of the prohibition order; or - (c) a police officer told the respondent about the existence of the prohibition order. - (a) the respondent was present in court when the corresponding order was made and the corresponding order stated that it could be registered in another jurisdiction; or - (b) the respondent was served personally with a copy of the corresponding order and the order stated that it could be registered in another jurisdiction; or - (c) a police officer told the respondent about the existence of the corresponding order, including the fact that the corresponding order could be registered in another jurisdiction; or - (d) that the respondent ought to have known that the corresponding order was registered in this jurisdiction.