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

Young Person found ‘Not Guilty’ of 7 Sexual Offences

AM, a young person, was charged with six counts of ‘Sexually touch another person with consent’, contrary to section 61KC(a) Crimes Act 1900, and a single count of ‘Aggravated sexual assault’, contrary to section 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900.

AM pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all charges and his matter proceeded to Hearing. Chris Cole represented AM at his Hearing which proceeded over four (4) days. The Prosecution called the complainant to give evidence as well as numerous prosecution witnesses, some of which were declared unfavourable witnesses. The defence called AM to give evidence as well as another civilian witness and various character referees.

The Magistrate provided a lengthy Judgment and ultimately found AM ‘not guilty’ of each count on the Indictment. Further, the Magistrate dismissed the Application for a Final Apprehended Violence Order for the protection of the complainant, noting Her Honour’s findings at the Hearing.

This is a huge relief for AM as his future was at stake. The maximum penalty for each offence of sexual touching is 5 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for Aggravated sexual assault is 20 years imprisonment. A finding of guilt would have meant a default registration on the Child Protection Offender’s Register.

Charges Dismissed Under Section 32 ‘Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act

JS was charged with ‘Stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm’ contrary to section 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and ‘Common Assault’ contrary to the Crimes Act 1900.

JS had unfortunately been attacked less than one month prior to his offence, triggering the exacerbation of his existing severe multiple mental health conditions.

James Castillo represented JS at the Downing Centre Local Court, making an application under section 32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. James Castillo tendered materials from JS’ psychiatrist and occupational therapist, and made oral submissions on his behalf.   

His Honour accepted the application made by James Castillo, exercising his discretion under section 32(3) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. Ultimately, His Honour dismissed both on the condition that JS comply with the treatment plan proposed by his psychiatrist.

This was a great result for JS as both charges were dismissed and he was able to continue his psychiatric treatment.

'Affray' and 'Offensive Behaviour" Dismissed

MA was charged with ‘Affray’ contrary to section 93C(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Behave in Offensive Manner’ contrary to section 4 Summary Offences Act 1988 with two co-accused.

MA pleaded not guilty and had a defended Hearing at Parramatta Local Court.

Chris Cole represented MA in the Hearing. Chris made use of the CCTV footage as primary evidence for the defence. Following the prosecution’s and defence’s cases, Chris also prepared written submissions on behalf of the defendant and tendered it to the court. Her Honour accepted the submissions and ruled in favour of the accused.

Her Honour found MA not guilty of both charges and dismissed the charges. There is no better outcome in a criminal matter than this.  

Serious sexual assault charge, successful negotiations and charge dismissed pursuant to s10(1)(a)

R v VL

In June 2017 VL was charged with an offence of sexual intercourse without consent. Chris Cole acted for VL in these proceedings.

 VL’s matter proceeded to a committal hearing in the local court, where the complainant was ordered to be cross-examined on their statement to police.

Troy Edwards of Counsel was briefed to appear at committal. Following rigorous cross-examination by Mr Edwards, the DPP indicated that they would like to negotiate on the charges.

Chris offered an alternative charge of intimidate with intent to cause mental harm, which the DPP accepted in full satisfaction.

The matter proceeded to sentence in the District Court on 4 April 2019. After submissions were made and various materials tendered, the Learned Judge was of the view that it would be inexpedient to record a conviction and additionally, to inflict any further punishment on VL.

Therefore, the charge was dismissed pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999.

This meant that VL maintained a conviction-free record and was not subject to any punishment by the court.

Charged with dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage, has charges dismissed

R v GC

GC was charged with one count of ‘dishonestly obtain a financial advantage’ ($500,000.00) contrary to section 192D of the Crimes Act 1900.

GC pleaded not guilty and was committed to stand Trial in the Sydney District Court.

Chris Cole instructed counsel at Trial. Following a successful application to have the trial separated from that of the accused, the Director of Public Prosecutions gave a direction that there were to be no further proceedings against GC and the charge was dismissed.

GC had been on Bail for over three years when his charge was dismissed. This direction was a great relief for the client and a fantastic result.

Convicted of one count of 'Intimidation' (DV); appealed conviction and appealed final ADVO order to the District Court; appeal upheld; charge dismissed

MS was convicted of one count of Intimidation (DV) after his former wife complained to police that during a road rage style incident he pulled over, banged on her windows, and threatened to kill her, while making a slashing gesture across his throat. At the time the complainant had their 1 year old infant in the car.

MS was represented in the Local Court defended hearing, having pleaded not guilty. However, he was convicted after all the evidence was heard, including the complainant’s evidence.

MS elected to appeal the conviction to the District Court. He also appealed the final ADVO.

Andrew Wright appeared in the appeal. Orders granting leave for the recall of the complainant were made on application to the court, as well as a police witness who was not called in the Local Court.

At the hearing of the appeal, the complainant was cross examined in detail and further submissions were made based on the multiple versions given by the complainant. The District Court Judge presiding was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been proven, noting inconsistencies in both accounts before the court.

MS was acquitted of the criminal charge; the final ADVO order which had only several months remaining was confirmed.

Charged with 'assault occasion actual bodily harm' and 'common assault' on a mother and daughter in the local park, with a third eye witness giving evidence, pleads not guilty

TP, a 42 year old male, was charged with assault occasion actual bodily harm / alternately common assault for allegedly punching a woman in the chest, following which she alleged a breast implant was ruptured. TP was further charged for allegedly dragging the daughter of the woman along a park bench, so that her earring was ripped from her ear. A third person known to the complainants gave supporting evidence. TP pleaded not guilty.

Andrew Wright represented TP. He successfully persuaded the Magistrate that the prosecution case lacked corroboration, contained gaps, and was inconsistent. A defence case was called relying on evidence from TP’s wife. In the result, all charges were dismissed, and TP was found not guilty.