Habitually Consorting With Offenders (Qld)

By James Stevens, Director and Solicitor, Go To Court Lawyers. Last reviewed 14 April 2026.

In Queensland, it is an offence to habitually consort with recognized offenders. This offence was introduced in 2016 and is contained in section 77B of the Crimes Act 1899. This page deals with the offence of consorting with offenders in Queensland.

The consorting laws in Queensland represent a significant legislative tool designed to combat organized crime and disrupt criminal networks. These laws have been the subject of considerable debate since their introduction, with supporters arguing they are necessary for public safety, while critics raise concerns about civil liberties and potential misuse.

The offence

Under section 77B, a person commits an offence if:

• They habitually consort with two or more recognized offenders, whether together or separately; and
• They consort with each recognized offender at least once after being given an official warning in relation to the offender.

This offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 300 penalty units.

Elements of the offence

For a successful prosecution, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person has habitually consorted with at least two recognized offenders. The term "habitually" suggests a pattern of behavior rather than isolated incidents. Additionally, the prosecution must establish that official warnings were properly served and that subsequent consorting occurred after these warnings were given.

Official warnings process

Official warnings are formal notices issued by Queensland Police to individuals who have been observed consorting with recognized offenders. These warnings serve as a crucial element in establishing the criminal offence, as continued consorting after receiving such warnings forms part of the prohibited conduct under the legislation.

What is a recognized offender?

A person is a recognized offender if they have a recorded conviction for a relevant offence. Relevant offences are any indictable offence with a maximum penalty of at least five years imprisonment or a number of other offences that are associated with organized crime and set out in section 77 of the Criminal Code 1899, including the following:

• Riot
• Going armed so as to cause fear
• Threatening violence
• Habitually consorting with recognized offenders
• Knowingly participating in prostitution
• Deprivation of liberty
• Assault with intent to steal
• Demanding property with menaces

The recorded conviction must not be a spent conviction.

Indictable offences with serious penalties

The legislation captures a broad range of serious criminal conduct through its definition of relevant offences. Any indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years or more imprisonment automatically qualifies, including serious drug offences, fraud, armed robbery, and various forms of assault causing bodily harm.

What is consorting?

Under section 77A of the Criminal Code 1899, a person consorts with another person if they seek out or accept the other person's company either in person or in another way. In order to amount to consorting, a person's association with another person need not have a purpose related to a criminal activity.

Modern forms of consorting

The definition of consorting has evolved to encompass modern forms of communication and association. This includes digital communications through social media platforms, messaging applications, phone calls, and other electronic means of maintaining contact or association with recognized offenders.

What is not consorting?

The laws relating to consorting do not apply to children.

When a person is prosecuted for consorting, the court is not to take into account the following acts if they were reasonable in the circumstances:

• Consorting with a recognized offender who is a close family member;
• Conducting a lawful business or engaging in lawful employment or occupation;
• Receiving education or training at an educational institution;
• Obtaining education or training for one's child at an educational institution;
• Receiving a health service;
• Obtaining legal services;
• Complying with a court order;
• Being detained in lawful custody.

Family and legitimate purposes

The legislation recognizes that people cannot choose their family members and should not be criminalized for maintaining reasonable family relationships. Similarly, legitimate business dealings, employment relationships, and essential services like healthcare and legal representation are protected activities that fall outside the scope of prohibited consorting.

Legal defences and challenges

Constitutional challenges

The consorting laws have faced various legal challenges on constitutional grounds, including arguments about freedom of association and the presumption of innocence. Courts have generally upheld the validity of these laws while emphasizing the importance of proper application and the availability of legitimate exceptions.

Burden of proof considerations

Defence lawyers often challenge consorting charges by scrutinizing the adequacy of official warnings, questioning the habitual nature of alleged associations, and highlighting legitimate reasons for contact with recognized offenders. The prosecution must establish each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Penalties and sentencing considerations

Sentencing factors

When determining appropriate penalties for consorting offences, Queensland courts consider factors including the nature and extent of the consorting behavior, the criminal history of the recognized offenders involved, evidence of ongoing criminal activity, and the defendant's personal circumstances and criminal history.

Alternative penalties

Courts may impose various penalties ranging from fines and community service orders to terms of imprisonment. Good behaviour bonds and probation orders are also available alternatives, particularly for first-time offenders or where there are compelling personal circumstances.

Why was the law introduced?

The offence was introduced to address outlawed motorcycle gangs and replaced the old anti-association offence contained in section 60A of the Criminal Code, which had never resulted in a conviction. It followed the introduction of a consorting offence in New South Wales. At the time the Queensland legislation was passed, the New South Wales offence had resulted in two convictions and had also withstood a constitutional challenge.

The Queensland Government introduced these laws as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat organized crime, particularly targeting outlaw motorcycle gangs whose activities were perceived as a significant threat to community safety and public order.

Responses to the laws

The laws have been criticized as having the potential to waste a lot of public money prosecuting people for acts that consist only of having social contact with people with criminal records. They have also been criticized as being capable of being applied to people who are not involved in organized crime but merely have a single conviction for a relevant offence. Lawyers and human rights advocates have also argued that the law is misused as a vehicle to prevent association rather than to combat organized crime.

The Queensland Police say that the laws have been used