District Court Conviction Appeal Upheld

JE was charged with ‘Intimidate police officer in execution of duty w/out ABH’. JE pleaded guilty to the offence and his matter proceeded to Hearing at the Local Court.

At the Local Court Hearing, the Prosecution called evidence from the officer-in-charge and from the complainant. There was no CCTV footage from the police station produced in the matter and the police omitted to obtain a witness statement from another police officer who was present during the alleged incident. JE gave evidence in his Defence. Notwithstanding the lack of independent evidence to support the complainant’s allegation, the Presiding Magistrate found JE guilty of the offence.
JE filed a Conviction Appeal to the District Court. At the Appeal Hearing, James Castillo pointed out the various parts of the evidence which cast doubt concerning the complainant’s evidence, as well as the lack of corroborating evidence which the Police consciously did not obtain.

The Appeal Judge reviewed the entirety of the evidence and ultimately, upheld the Appeal, dismissing the charge and finding the appellant not guilty of the offence.

Behave in Offensive Manner in Public Place Offence Withdrawn After Successful Representations

FB was charged with ‘Behave in offensive manner in/near/within hearing from a public place/school’, contrary to section 4(1) Summary Offences Act 1988. The allegation against FB relates to the conduct when he recorded a video of two females at a train station. Independent witnesses saw this conduct and alleged that FB’s behaviour was offensive.

FB pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the offence and had the matter set down for Hearing.

Pending the Hearing date, James Castillo prepared Representations to withdraw the charge, noting the context of the incident and that nothing captured could constitute offensive in a legal context.  

Eventually, Police accepted the Representations to withdraw the charge.

Rare Non-Conviction for a Mid-Range PCA Offence

MW was charged with ‘Mid-range PCA’ after being breath tested by Police following making a left turn on a ‘No Left Turn’ road.

James Castillo represented for MW at his Sentence. James assisted MW in preparing his Affidavit and reviewing character references which were relied on at his Sentence. James made oral submissions explaining the circumstances of the offending as contained in MW’s Affidavit and laid out to the Court the potential implications on MW’s employment and pending visa application, should a conviction be recorded.

Ultimately, the Presiding Magistrate was convinced that it was appropriate to exercise the Court’s discretion and impose a Conditional Release Order without conviction, notwithstanding the serious nature of the offence.

This is an outstanding outcome for MW was this allowed him to continue residing in Australia with a clean record and continue with his employment with his driver’s license valid.  

Stalk/Intimidate Charge Defended, Found Not Guilty

BO was charged with ‘Stalk/intimidate intending to cause fear of physical etc. harm’, contrary to section 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 after his neighbour made a complaint of being threatened to be bashed with a hockey stick and allegedly BO swung a hockey stick towards him.

BO pleaded ‘not guilty’ and the matter proceeded to Hearing. James Castillo acted for BO at his Hearing. The Prosecution called evidence from the officer-in-charge, the complainant and BO’s partner. The Defence did not call evidence. Ultimately, the Presiding Magistrate was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the allegation and found BO ‘not guilty’ of the offence.

No Prosecution Witness, Adjournment Opposed

AF was charged with ‘Larceny’, contrary to section 117 Crimes Act 1900. She entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ to the offence and her matter was set down for Hearing.

At the day of Hearing, no prosecution witness turned up including the office-in-charge. The Prosecutor sought an adjournment application. James Castillo opposed the application. The Presiding Magistrate refused the adjournment application and consequently, the charge was withdrawn and dismissed.

CRO Without Conviction for a Damaged Wall

ZW was charged with ‘Destroy or damage property-DV’, contrary to section 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

The charge related to a verbal altercation between ZW and his wife. Their argument eventually resulted in ZW punching a hole in the wall of the house.

James Castillo negotiated amended Facts in favour of ZW. ZW pled guilty to the offence and was sentenced on the amended Facts.

The Presiding Magistrate sentenced ZW to a Conditional Release Order without conviction for 12 months.  

Non-Conviction Sentence for a Damage to a Motor Vehicle

BL was charged with ‘Intentionally/recklessly destroy or damage property”, contrary to section 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 concerning a damage he caused to an uber vehicle after throwing an electronic cigarette at the said vehicle.

BL pleaded guilty to the offence. James Castillo represented BL at his Sentence. James relied on an Affidavit from BL and two character references. James made oral submissions asking the court to extend leniency to BL and exercise the Court’s discretion to impose a Conditional Release Order without conviction. The Presiding Magistrate agreed with James and imposed a CRO without conviction for 12 months.

This is a pleasing result for BL as a criminal conviction could potentially have impacted his pending Working Holiday Visa.

Negotiated Plea Offer Resulted to Time Served

HG was charged with ‘Break & Enter Dwelling-house or building commit serious indictable offence (steal)”, contrary to section 112(1)(a). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. 

HG instructed James Castillo to negotiate a plea offer. James successfully negotiated a plea to a reduced charge of “Steal in dwelling-house” which only carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

Prior to being granted bail, HG spent about 5 months in custody. At Sentence, James made oral submissions seeking the court to impose an imprisonment sentence of time served. The Sentencing Magistrate accepted the submissions. He essentially imposed a sentence of time served, after finding special circumstances that warranted the adjustment of the ratio of the non-parole period to 50%.

This was particularly a pleasing result, given HG’s extensive criminal history.

Aggregate Sentence on Lengthy List of Indictable Charges – Attempt Murder; Break & Enter

PB was charged with offences relating to series of break and enter incidents. Namely, 2 counts of ‘Aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Attempt to murder’, contrary to s 18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence’ (inflict grievous bodily harm), contrary to s 112(3) Crimes Act 1900, 4 counts of ‘Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100000’, contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900, 3 counts of ‘Break and Enter dwelling-house or building commit serious indictable offence’ (destroy etc property), contrary to s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Aggravated enter dwelling with intent’ (knowing people there), contrary to s 111(2) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Enter dwelling with intent’, contrary to s 111(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Larceny’, contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900. These are very serious charges resulting in lengthy terms of imprisonment if sentenced at the top end. PB has a substantial criminal history and had previously spent a number of years in custody for similar offences.

Chris Cole and James Castillo acted for PB in these matters, instructing David Carroll as Counsel.  

Chris Cole entered negotiations with the Prosecution to amend the Agreed Facts. A number of the charges were Certified for District Court and remaining sequences were withdrawn.

Following further negotiations, the matter proceeded to Committal. Pleas of guilty were entered on PB’s behalf to ‘Specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, namely larceny in circumstances of special aggravation, namely, did intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm’, a rolled up sequence (inclusive of 3 sequences), ‘Deal with property proceeds of crime less than $1,000,000.00’, and ‘Break and enter dwelling house commit serious indictable offence’. Further sequences ‘Enter dwelling house with intent to commit larceny’ and ‘Larceny’ were placed on a Form 1. The matter then proceeded to Sentence.

James Castillo appeared with David Carroll for PB’s Sentence at the District Court. The Crown Sentence bundle was tendered, and the Crown made Sentence submissions regarding PB’s risk of re-offending, future dangerousness and the protection of the community. David Carroll then made submissions on PB’s behalf. Mr Carroll’s submissions addressed the timing of plea and utilitarian discount on sentence, the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances and mitigating features and special circumstances, referring to materials in the Defence Sentence bundle.   

His Honour considered both Crown and Defence submissions then proceeded to Judgment. Ultimately, His Honour sentenced PB to an aggregate sentence of 10 years 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years.

This is a very pleasing result for PB considering the objective seriousness of these offences and his prior criminal history.

Trial Withdrawn, Sentenced at Local Court Instead

JT was charged with a count of ‘Steal from person and inflict actual bodily harm’, contrary to section 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years term of imprisonment. He was further charged with a back-up offence of ‘Receiving stolen property where stealing a serious indictable offence’, contrary to section 188(1) Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years term of imprisonment.

JT pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the single count on Indictment and his matter was listed for Trial at the Sydney District Court. Months prior to his Trial, the steal from person offence was formally withdrawn by the Crown and his matter was remitted back to the Central Local Court to deal with the back-up offence.

James Castillo acted for JT and entered a guilty plea to the back-up offence. James tendered a Sentence Assessment Report prepared for JT on his previous unrelated matter and made oral submissions on his behalf. Ultimately, the Sentencing Magistrate sentenced JT to a fixed term of 5 months imprisonment. JT’s sentence was backdated and from the Sentence date, he had only a month left to serve in custody before he was released.

This is particularly a great result for JT, noting his lengthy criminal history of the similar natured offences.

Breach of CCO, Similar CCO Imposed

KP pleaded guilty to the charge of ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm’, contrary to section 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. She also has a matter on a Form 1 which is a charge of ‘Larceny’, contrary to section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years.

Ultimately, His Honour imposed a Community Correction Order (CCO) for a period of 2 years with additional conditions namely, that KP participate in a treatment program at the direction of Community Corrections for alcohol and drug problems for the term of the order and that she remains at Healing House residential rehabilitation until the completion of the program.

KP breached her CCO when she was fined and convicted for possessing a prohibited drug. Her matter was called up by the same Judge who has sentenced her to CCO. James Castillo represented KP in her breach matter. His Honour adjourned the matter on numerous occasions to allow KP to get a bed placement at a residential rehabilitation, noting that KP’s options were limited, either to enter a residential rehabilitation program, or to be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment. James referred and assisted KP to get an acceptance to a residential rehabilitation program to address her drug and mental health issues.

Upon acceptance to a residential rehabilitation, His Honour re-sentenced KP for the breach by revoking the CCO in place, and imposing a new CCO for 12 months with the additional conditions namely, that KP enter a detoxification program and upon completion, that she enters and remains at a residential rehabilitation until the completion of the program.

Sentenced to Four years out of a Maximum Life-time Imprisonment

MA was charged with an offence of ‘Manufacture prohibited drug > large commercial (4.82kg methylamphetamine)’, contrary to section 24(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life-time imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units (or $605,000.)

MA entered a guilty plea in the Local Court and he was committed for Sentence at the District Court. James Castillo represented MA in his matter, briefing Counsel Linda Barnes.

At Sentence, James and Linda tendered a psychological report on MA’s behalf. Linda further prepared written submissions supported by oral submissions in support of MA’s role in the offending.

Ultimately, His Honour sentenced MA to 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

MA was extremely happy about the outcome of his matter.

Sentenced to CCO Despite Repeated Offending, Breach of CCO and Multiple Contravene AVO’s

YI has a complex history involving Domestic Violence (DV) related offences. She suffers from long-term mental health and drug addiction issues. James Castillo represented YI in relation to charges of ‘Common assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Contravene AVO’, contrary to s 14(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2001. YI was serving 2 Community Corrections Order’s (CCO’s) and an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) at the time of offending.

James tendered a psychological report and made oral submissions on YI’s behalf. Her Honour then proceeded to Sentence YI on both charges. Ultimately, Her Honour imposed a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 18 months on the condition that YI continue with rehabilitation and psychiatric treatment.

This is an outstanding result. Particularly given YI has a substantial history of DV and contravention of AVO offences and was serving 2 CCO’s and an ICO when charged with the offences. 

Guilty Plea Results in Fine Only

RK was charged with ‘Destroy or damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Common assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Stalk / intimidation’, contrary to s 13(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and ‘Intentionally choke’, contrary to s 37 Crimes Act 1900.

RK pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the offences of ‘Common assault’, ‘Stalk / intimidation’ and ‘Intentionally choke’. RK pleaded ‘guilty’ to ‘Destroy or damage property’. James Castillo acted for RK at Judgment and Sentence in the Local Court.

With respect to the offences of ‘Common assault’, ‘stalk / intimidation’ and ‘Intentionally choke’, Her Honour accepted RK’s evidence was credible and reliable. Ultimately, Her Honour found RK ‘not guilty’ of these offences.

Her Honour then proceeded to Sentence RK with respect to the ‘Destroy or damage property’ offence. James Castillo tendered written materials and made oral submissions on his behalf. Ultimately, Her Honour convicted RK of the offence, only imposing a fine of $850.00.

This is a great result.

Sentenced to CRO Without Conviction for Traffic-Related Offence

SV was charged with the offence of ‘Not stopping on stop line’, contrary to s 67(1) Road Rules 2014. James Castillo represented SV in his matter. SV has an extensive driving record.

James entered a plea of guilty to the offence on SV’s behalf and made oral submissions as to why Her Honour should not record a conviction for the offence. Her Honour was satisfied that a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction was warranted in SV’s circumstances, accepting that a conviction for the offence would cause extra-curial punishment outweighing the intended penalty of the offence.

Ultimately, Her Honour placed SV on a CRO without conviction for the duration of 18 months and ordered SV to complete a Traffic Offender Intervention Program (TOIP) within 3 months.

This is a pleasing result.

‘Possession of a prescribed / restricted substance’ Proceeds to Hearing, Client Found Not Guilty!

SA was charged with two counts of ‘possession of a prescribed / restricted substance’, contrary to s 16(1) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

The matter proceeded to Hearing where James Castillo appeared for SA. The Officer in Charge was called to give evidence by the Prosecution. In defence SA and her partner gave evidence. James then tendered written materials and made closing submissions on SA’s behalf as to why she ought not be convicted of the offences.

Ultimately, His Honour agreed with the defence case and found SA ‘not guilty’ on both counts. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.

This is an outstanding result.

Third CRO Without Conviction!

MR was charged with ‘Common assault’ and ‘Affray’, contrary to Crimes Act 1900. MR had recently been found guilty of two domestic violence (DV) related offences, receiving Conditional Release Order’s (CRO’s) without conviction on both charges. James Castillo represented MR in these matters.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the offence of ‘Common assault’ and subsequently, the police withdrew the ‘Affray’ charge. The matter then proceeded to Sentence. James tendered materials and made oral submissions on MR’s behalf as to why a further CRO without conviction was the most appropriate Sentence.

Ultimately, Her Honour found MR guilty of ‘Common assault’ and sentenced him to a CRO without conviction for the duration of 20 months. The CRO is conditional to no further offences being committed, and that MR continues to engage and comply with a mental health treatment plan.

Her Honour made a final Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) for the duration of two years.

Had a conviction been recorded MR would have lost the job he has held for many years and relies upon to support not only himself, but other family members. 

This is an outstanding result and a great relief to MR.

CRO No Conviction Recorded

AL was charged with one count of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, namely cocaine, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. James Castillo represented AL in proceedings.

James tendered a sentence bundle and made oral submissions in support of a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction.

The Magistrate ultimately agreed with James’ submissions, sentencing AL to a CRO without conviction for a period of 12 months.

This is a very pleasing result for AL, particularly given her employment could be terminated if convicted of a criminal offence.  

Sentenced to CCO on First ‘Drug-Related’ Offence

PS was charged with ‘Owner / occupier knowingly allow use as drug premises – 1st offence’, contrary to s 36y(1)(A) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and ‘Organises or conducts or assists in organising drug premises – 1st offence’, contrary to s 36Z(1)(A) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

James Castillo acted on instructions from PS. Following negotiations with the Prosecution, sequence 2 ‘Organises etc. in organising drug premises’ was withdrawn and a plea of guilty to sequence 1, ‘Owner / occupier knowingly allow use as drug premises’ was entered. The matter then proceeded to Sentence, where James tendered written materials and made oral submissions on PS’s behalf. Ultimately, His Honour Sentenced PS to a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 8 months.

This is a pleasing outcome for PS, notwithstanding his criminal history. 

5 Year Maximum Penalty, Sentenced to Community Corrections Order

HH faced charges of ‘Destroy / damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900, and ‘Stalk / intimidate’, contrary to s 13 Crimes Act 1900. James Castillo acted for HH in the matter. The maximum Sentence for each charge is 5 years imprisonment.  

The matter proceeded to Sentence where James Castillo tendered various materials and made oral submissions on HH’s behalf. Ultimately, His Honour imposed a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 12 months, subject to the conditions that HH is of good behaviour, and must appear before the court if called upon to do so. His Honour made a Compensation Order for damages, and an AVO was finalised for a period of 2 years.

This is a pleasing result for HH.