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.

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.

Not Guilty of Stalk/Intimidate/Assault

JK was charged with ‘Stalk/ Intimidate’, contrary to section 13(1) Crimes (Domestic & Personal Violence) Act 2007 and ‘Common Assault’, contrary to section 61 Crimes Act 1900.

Chris Cole and Simon Buchen SC represented JK in these matters. The prosecution closed their case and JK was called to give evidence in the defence case. Counsel made submissions concerning why JK ought not to be convicted of both offences and why the court ought not to make orders for an Apprehended Violence Order. His Honour delivered an Ex Tempore Judgment and found JK not guilty of both offences. Additionally, he did not make an order for an Apprehended Violence Order.

Counsel then made submissions as to why court ought to grant professional costs in JK’s favour. This matter has been adjourned to a later date.

This is a very pleasing result for JK who is able to maintain his strong reputation in the community.