Charge Dismissed Under Section 10; Fail to Comply with Notice Displaying Mass Requirements

DM is employed as a truck driver. He was charged with the offence of ‘Fail to comply with notice displaying mass requirements’, contrary to s 148(6) Road Transport (General) Regulation 2013, to which he pleaded guilty. If convicted, DM could lose 11 demerit points, and face a fine of up to $3,300.00.

Chris Cole acted for DM, appearing at the Downing Centre Local Court where the matter was listed for Mention/Sentence. Chris tendered subjective materials and made oral submissions on DM’s behalf.

Ultimately, Her Honour agreed with the submission that DM ought not be convicted of the offence. Her Honour made an order dismissing the charge pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999.

This is a great result, and an enormous relief for DM.  

20BQ - Matter Dismissed; Mental Health Application; Use Carriage Service to Menace/Harass/Offend

BT was charged with ‘Use carriage service to menace/harass/offend’, contrary to s 474.17(1) Criminal Code Act 1995. The maximum Sentence for this offence is a term of 12 months imprisonment, if dealt with in the Local Court. 

BT has difficulty understanding social cues and norms, also suffering from a number of mental illnesses. Chris Cole represented BT, lodging a Section 20BQ Application in the Local Court. A charge may be dismissed under Section 20BQ of the Crimes Act 1941 (Cth) if a person is found to be suffering a mental illness or intellectual disability. In support of the application Chris tendered a psychological report and Mental Health Treatment Plan on BT’s behalf. He then made oral submissions that it would be more appropriate to divert BT’s matter to be dealt with under the health system.

After careful consideration the Magistrate allowed BT’s matter to be diverted away from the criminal justice system under the orders that BT comply with the treatment plan proposed by his psychiatrist for a period of 12 months, and that his GP would supervise the treatment plan for the relevant period.

This is a fantastic result for BT, as he is able to access treatment in the community and has avoided any criminal record. 

Charged with Six Firearms Offences Whilst Serving an ICO; Minimal Aggregate Sentence Imposed

GC was charged with six firearms-related offences, namely ‘Possess unregistered firearm pistol’, contrary to s 36(1) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Not keep firearm safely not prohibited firearm/pistol’, contrary to s 39(1)(A) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Possess ammunition w/o holding licence/permit/authority’, contrary to s 65(3) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Acquire etc pistol subject to firearms prohibition order’, contrary to s 74(1) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Acquire etc ammunition subject to firearms prohibition order’, contrary to s 74(3) Firearms Act 1996 and ‘Firearm etc found at premises subject to prohibition order’, contrary to s 74(6) Firearms Act 1996. GC was serving an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) for unrelated offences at the time of his arrest. He has a substantial criminal history including previous firearms charges.

Chris Cole entered negotiations with the Prosecution proposing a number of offences be withdrawn or placed on a Form 1, in exchange for a plea of guilty to the remaining offences. Ultimately, the Crown agreed to commit the matter for Sentence on just two offences, namely ‘Possess pistol subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’ and ‘Possess ammunition subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’. The sequence of ‘Not keep firearm safely’ was placed on a Form 1 and the remaining charges were withdrawn. GC was eligible for a 25% discount on Sentence for his early appropriate guilty plea (EAGP). 

Chris Cole briefed Counsel Mark Davies to appear at District Court Sentence. GC lives with severe cardiac illness and suffered a stroke not long before his arrest. A sentence bundle was prepared comprising of medical reports and documents, an affidavit, character references and other written materials in support of GC’s extenuating circumstances and mitigating factors.      

James Castillo appeared with Mark Davies of Counsel at District Court Sentence. The sentence bundle was tendered. Further tendered was an excerpt from the Bugmy Bar Book outlining the COVID-19 risks and impacts on prisoners. Counsel also prepared written submissions and made further oral submissions on GC’s behalf. GC was called to give evidence.

GC was then sentenced on the offences of ‘Possess pistol subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’, ‘Possess ammunition subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’ and ‘Not keep firearm safely’ (related offence). Ultimately, Her Honour found mitigating circumstances in GC’s favour and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, backdated to include time already spent in custody.

This is an outstanding outcome for GC.

Sequence Placed on Form 1, No Conviction Recorded – Possess Prohibited Drug

AA was charged with one count of ‘Possess prohibited drug (Testosterone)’ and one count ‘Possess Prohibited drug (Methandienone)’, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Chris Cole acted for AA in his matter.

A plea of guilty was entered to both sequences in the Local Court and the matter was adjourned for Sentence. Chris indicated to the Court that Representations would be sent to the Local Area Command concerning the Facts and possibly placing one of the sequences on a Form 1.

Chris successfully negotiated to have the second sequence placed on a Form 1. The matter proceeded to Sentence.

The Prosecution tendered written materials. Chris then tendered an Affidavit sworn by AA, character references and a drug screen result.    

Ultimately, Her Honour Sentenced AA to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction for a period of 12 months. The only condition of that order is that AA is to be of good behaviour for the period of that order.

AA is required to have a clear criminal record for his employment. This is a great result for AA.

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.

CRO Without Conviction, Avoids Licence Suspension; Breach of Good Behaviour Licence

JP was charged with Drive across dividing lines to do a U-turn’, contrary to Road Rules 2014. When this incident occurred, JP was already on a good behaviour licence due to previous traffic offences. Chris Cole acted for JP in this matter.

 JP relies heavily on his licence as a Real Estate Agent. Having his licence suspended would significantly impact JP’s ability to work.

JP completed the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP) prior to Sentence.

A plea of guilty was entered to the offence and the matter was listed for Sentence in the Local Court. Chris Tendered materials on JP’s behalf and made oral submissions that he ought not be convicted of the offence. Ultimately, the Presiding Magistrate agreed with the submissions and placed JP on a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction, for a period of 12 months. JP is to be of good behaviour and not commit any further traffic offences during that period.   

This is a very pleasing outcome for JP.

No Conviction Recorded for Breach of Good Behaviour Licence

AT was charged with ‘Not stop at line at red light’, contrary to s 56(1)(a) Road Rules 2014. AT was on a good behaviour licence at the time of the offence. He elected to have the penalty decided in Court.  Chris Cole represented AT in his matter.

AT completed the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP) prior to Sentence. He pleaded guilty to the offence and Chris tendered materials to the Court. The Magistrate noted AT’s plea of guilty and deemed it not expedient to record a conviction or record any punishment, pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.  This means AT retains his licence and there is no breach of his good behaviour licence.

This is a great outcome for AT.

Plea Traversal Granted, Found Not Guilty; Supply Prohibited Drug

DJ was charged with ‘Supply prohibited drug >indictable & <commercial quantity’, namely Heroin, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment if prosecuted in the Local Court and 15 years imprisonment if prosecuted in the District Court. DJ has complex chronic health conditions that often render him in excruciating pain. He was receiving inpatient hospital treatment at the time of the offence.

DJ initially pleaded guilty to the offence. He did not fully understand the process or the nature of the charge he was pleading to. DJ sought new representation and made contact with O’Brien & Hudson Solicitors. Chris Cole acted in his matter moving forward.

Chris appeared at the Local Court where he lodged a Section 4 Application / Plea Traversal on DJ’s behalf. His Honour granted that application and a plea of not guilty was entered.

The matter proceeded to Hearing. Chris tendered written materials and made oral submissions on DJ’s behalf. DJ gave evidence and closing submissions were made by the Prosecution. The Magistrate then proceeded to Judgment, ultimately finding DJ not guilty of the offence.

This is an outstanding result for DJ.

Charged with 9 Counts ‘Break, Enter and Steal’ and 1 Count ‘Aggravated Break, Enter and Steal’, Minimal Aggregate Sentence Imposed

DK was charged with 9 counts of ‘Break, Enter and Steal’, contrary to s 112(A) Crimes Act 1900 and one count of ‘Aggravated Break, Enter and Steal’, contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900. The offences took place between 2013 – 2017.

An offence contrary to s 112(A) Crimes Act 1900 carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. An offence contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900 carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 5 years.  

Chris briefed Counsel Daniel Pace to appear in DK’s sentence proceedings. Chris Cole and Daniel Pace appeared with DK at the District Court for part-heard Sentence of all 10 offences. Subjective materials and written submissions were tendered on his behalf. After considering all evidence and submissions, His Honour ultimately imposed an aggregate sentence of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years, backdated to include time already spent in custody.

This is a great result for DK, particularly considering maximum terms of imprisonment for these offences. 

Sentence of Imprisonment to be Served by Way of ICO; Deal with Proceeds of Crime

TL was charged with two counts of ‘Deal with property the Proceeds of Crime’, contrary to s 193C(1) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum sentence for this offence is a term of imprisonment of 5 years. Following his arrest Chris Cole made a successful Application for Grant of Bail. TL was immediately released from custody on bail. TL instructed Chris to enter pleas of guilty to both counts of ‘Deal with property the Proceeds of Crime’.

Chris briefed Counsel James Trevallion to act in TL’s sentence proceedings. A comprehensive sentence bundle of subjective materials was prepared and tendered, supplemented by oral submissions. The Magistrate considered submissions and ultimately sentenced TL to a term of 14 months imprisonment on the first count and 10 months imprisonment on the second count. His Honour ordered that assessment take place as to TL’s suitability to serve that sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) with a Home Detention component. The matter was adjourned.

The matter then proceeded for part-heard Sentence where the His Honour found TL suitable to serve his sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order, with a Home Detention component. Ultimately, His Honour imposed both offences to be served concurrently, by way of ICO, Home Detention and a total of 100 hours community service.

This is a very pleasing result for TL.  

Successful Negotiations with Prosecution on Drug-Related Charges – CRO on Sentence

DS was charged with 11 drug-related and proceeds of crime offences, namely, ‘Deal with Proceeds of Crime < $1,000,000.00’, contrary to s 193(C) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Supply prohibited drug (Cannabis Leaf)’, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985,  3 counts of ‘Possess/attempt to possess prescribed restricted - (Tramadol, Methylphenidate, Diazepam)’, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and 6 Counts of ‘Possess prohibited drug (Cannabis Leaf, Alprazolam, Oxycodone, Tramadol, Methylamphetamine)’, contrary to s 16(1) Poisons and Therapeutics Goods Act 1966.

Chris Cole submitted representations to the Local Area Commander. He noted an early plea of guilty to ‘Possess prohibited drug (Cannabis Leaf)’ and sought to withdraw the remaining charges. He further noted no evidence of drug supply, receipts corresponding to the small amount of cash found on the premises and prescriptions in DS’ name for Tramadol and Oxycodone. The remaining restricted medications were prescribed to acquaintances of DS, all having recently stayed in her home.

Following negotiations, the Prosecution ultimately agreed to Chris Cole’s offer, withdrawing a number of charges in exchange for a plea of guilty to ‘Possess prohibited drug (Cannabis)’, placing one count of each ‘Possess prescribed restricted substance’ and ‘Possess prohibited drug’ on a Form 1.  

The matter proceeded to Sentence.

Chris tendered written material and made oral submissions on DS’ behalf. Ultimately, His Honour sentenced DS to a Conditional Release Order (with conviction) for period of 12 months, the only condition imposed was to be of good behaviour for the duration of that order.

This is a great result for DS, particularly noting the objective seriousness of the initial charges.

Appeal Allowed, Indicative Sentence Reduced and Backdated, Finding Made of ‘Special Circumstances’

BS was charged with ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm domestic violence related (AOABH)’, contrary to s 59 Crimes Act 1900 and Sentenced to 1 year and 16 days in prison, with a non-parole period of 9 months and 12 days. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment. BS has a significant history of similar charges.

Chris Cole represented BS in relation to a Severity Appeal against his original sentence. Submissions were made to the Presiding Judge by both the Prosecutor and Defence. At the time of Appeal BS had already served just over 3 months in custody.  

Ultimately, His Honour allowed the appeal, backdated the sentence further, reduced the indicative sentence and made a finding of ‘special circumstances’. Accordingly, BS was re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, backdated and comprising of a non-parole period of 7 months.

This is an outstanding result for BS who is now due to be released on parole in August.

Numerous ‘Graffiti’ Related, ‘Good Suspected Stolen’, ‘Affray’ and ‘Hinder’ Charges Result in CCO and Fines.

RR had a number of ongoing matters before the Local Court including 23 charges relating to ‘Destroy / damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc’, contrary to s 68j(1)(B) Passenger Transport (general) Regulation 2017 and ‘Goods suspected stolen in / on premises (not m/v)’, contrary to s 527c(1)(C) Crimes Act 1900. He also faced charges of ‘Affray’, contrary to s 93C(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Fail to notify Authority of change in residential address within 14 days’, contrary to s 122(1)(b) Road Transport (driver Licensing) Regulation 2017. A further charge of ‘Hinder discovery evidence re: serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 315(1)(B) Crimes Act 1900, was brought against RR. Chris Cole acted for RR across these matters.

In regards to the ‘Destroy / damage property’, relating to graffiti offences, ‘Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc.’ and ‘Goods suspected stolen’ charges, Chris entered discussions with the Prosecution with the intent to negotiate a sensible plea deal. After discussions with the Prosecution were had, the Prosecution agreed to withdraw 11 of the sequences, in exchange for pleas of guilty to the offences where RR’s tag was identifiable and the ‘Goods suspected stolen’ charge. They also agreed to place the ‘Go onto … running lines etc’ charges on a Form 1.

A breach by RR of his Community Corrections Orders (CCO) was recorded whilst his matters were still before the Court.  

RR’s matters proceeded to Sentence. Chris Cole tendered various materials on RR’s behalf and made oral submissions. His Honour then Sentenced RR on each of the remaining charges. To the breach of CCO no action was taken. To the ‘Affray’ charge a CCO was imposed for the duration of 12 months and an $880.00 fine handed down. The Destroy / damage property’ offences resulted in a CCO for 12 months. RR also received a CCO for 12 months and fine of $880.00 on the ‘Hinder discovery evidence’ charge. In addition, His Honour made a Compensation Order of $5,816.00 payable to Sydney Trains.

This is a fantastic result for RR who was able to avoid any term of imprisonment or more restrictive community based orders.

Successful Plea Negotiations – CRO on Sentence

TR was charged with ‘Break & Enter dwelling-house etc commit serious indictable offence (not stealing / damaging property)’, contrary to s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Cause unauthorised computer function with intent to commit serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 308C(1) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage or cause disadvantage by deception’, contrary to s 192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 and two counts of ‘Enter building / land with intent commit indictable offence’, contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900. Each of these offences carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment. These matters have been before the Court since 2018. 

Chris Cole represented TR throughout proceedings. Chris entered negotiations with Police Prosecutors for a plea of ‘guilty’ to be entered to one count of ‘Enter building / land with intent to commit indictable offence’ in exchange for the ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc’ charge to be placed on a Form 1 and remaining charges to be withdrawn. This offer was accepted by Police and the matter proceeded to Sentence.

Chris made oral submissions on TR’s behalf and tendered written materials. He made submissions that His Honour ought to place TR on a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without recording a conviction. His Honour was concerned that the community would expect a conviction to be recorded and was ‘in two minds’ about whether he should. Ultimately, His Honour Sentenced TR to a CRO (with conviction) for a period of 9 months.

This is a wonderful result and enormous relief for TR, noting the seriousness of initial charges and length of time the matter has been before the Court.

Found Not Guilty on 7 Counts, No Penalty on Remaining Sequence, Costs Granted in Defence Favour

TI was charged with eight offences relating to a single traffic incident. Namely, ‘Assault Police Officer in execution of duty w/o ABH’, contrary to s 60(1) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Use offensive language in/near public place/school’, contrary to s 4a(1) Summary Offences Act 1988, two counts of ‘Resist Officer in execution of duty’, contrary to s 58 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Not comply with direction to stop/move etc light vehicle’, contrary to  s 67(1) Road Rules 2014, ‘Not stop at line (intersection with no lights), contrary to s 46(1) Road Rules 2014, ‘Disobey no left turn’, contrary to rule 91 Road Rules 2014 and ‘Not give left change of direction signal with lights’, contrary to s 46(1) Road Rules 2014.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the ‘Disobey no left turn’ offence and pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered to the remaining 7 sequences. Chris Cole acted for TI in these matters.

The matters proceeded to Hearing on which occassion Chris cross examined the Officer in charge. TI was then called to give evidence. Ultimately, Her Honour found TI ‘not guilty’ for each of the offences to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’. Additionally, Her Honour was highly critical of the Officer in charge’s conduct, which was captured by a witness at the time of TI’s arrest, ultimately finding arrests on both occasions were unlawful.

Chris then made an application that the Prosecution pay TI’s professional costs. Her Honour subsequently made an order that NSW Police pay TI’s professional costs.

With respect to the offence which TI pleaded ‘guilty’ to, Her Honour noted the plea and dismissed the charge with no penalty pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

This is an excellent result.

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.

Drive with Low Range PCA – CRO without Conviction

Christopher Cole represented SL on Sentence for the offence of ‘Drive with low range PCA’, contrary to s 110(3)(a) Road Transport Act 2013.

Material was tendered on SL’s behalf and Chris made oral submissions. Ultimately, Her Honour sentenced SL to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction for a period of 6 months.

This is a pleasing result, particularly given SL relies heavily on his driver’s licence for work. Further, SL’s contract could be terminated if convicted of a criminal offence and he currently resides in Australia on an employment Visa.

‘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.