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.

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.

Not guilty of two counts of Common Assault

LD was charged with a count of ‘Excluded person re-enter licensed premises’, contrary to section 77 of the Liquor Act 2007, and two counts of ‘Common Assault’, contrary to section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900. LD entered a guilty plea on re-entering a licensed premises after being excluded and the remaining offences were defended.
Chris Cole acted for LD at his Hearing. The prosecution relied on the evidence provided by the complainants and a CCTV footage that captured the incident. Chris called LD to give evidence to establish self-defence. Submissions were then made by each of the Prosecution and Defence.

The Magistrate ultimately found LD, ‘not guilty’ of each of the offences of common assault and both offences were dismissed. With respect to LD’s guilty plea on re-entering a licensed premise after being excluded, the Magistrate fined him the sum of $1,100.00.

LD was very pleased with the outcome of his matter, noting that the maximum penalty for a common assault is 2 years imprisonment and the maximum fine for the other offence is $5,500.00