Two Charges Withdrawn, One Plea of Guilty, One Charge Placed on Form 1

BE was charged with three offences – ‘Aggravated break & enter and commit serious indictable offence’, contrary to section 112(2) Crimes Act 1990; ‘Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen’, contrary to section 527c(1)(A); and ‘Aggravated break & enter dwelling in company steal < = $60,000’, contrary to section 112(2) Crimes Act 1900.

James Castillo successfully negotiated on BE’s behalf to have the offences of ‘Aggravated break, enter and steal’ and ‘Enter enclosed land without lawful excuse’ withdrawn. A plea of guilty was entered to ‘Stealing from a dwelling house’, contrary to section 148 Crimes Act 1900 and the offence of ‘Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen’ was placed on Form 1.

Her Honour sentenced BE to 18 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months. This is a pleasing result for BE, particularly in light of the objective seriousness of the initial charges.

Charged with 3 Driving Offences, Convicted of Only One

RI was charged with three driving offences— ‘Exceed speed limit >20km/h’, ‘disobey red no right turn signal’ and ‘disobey marked line’.

Chris Cole represented RI in this matter. Chris negotiated with Police that in exchange for pleas of guilty on the first two offences, the police will withdraw the third offence. It was a successful negotiation for RI and the plea offer was accepted with the third offence withdrawn.

RI was sentenced for the offences he pleaded guilty on. In relation to the speeding offence, Her Honour convicted RI and fined him $550. In relation to the other offence, Her Honour placed him on a Conditional Release Order subject to a good behaviour for a period of 6 months with no conviction.

Regarding demerit points, it was also a success for RI having only accrued 4 demerit points from the speeding offence, instead of having 9 for the three offences. 

Charged, Negotiated and Withdrawn

MA was charged with two offences namely, ‘Armed with intent’ contrary to section 114(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Affray’ contrary to section 93C Crimes Act 1900.

MA pleaded not guilty to both charges. Chris Cole reviewed the Brief of Evidence in its entirety including reviewing CCTV footages and perusing statements made by independent witnesses. After careful analysis, it became evident that self-defence is a strong argument for MA.

Chris Cole prepared representations to the police to withdraw the mentioned charges on the basis of self-defence. Initially, the Commander refused to accept the representations and the matter was set for hearing. At the end, the charges were withdrawn, and the matter was dismissed.

This is a successful negotiation story.

Charged with 'use carriage service to harass', successfully have charges withdrawn

R v VD

VD was charged with one count of ‘use carriage service to harass’, contrary to section 474.17 of the Criminal Code contained in schedule 1 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The maximum term of imprisonment for this offence is three years, making it a relatively serious charge.

Chris Cole represented VD and his matter was heard in Fairfield Local Court. VD had been bail refused for over six months and Police sought to adjourn the matter. Cole opposed the adjournment and the presiding Magistrate agreed.

The Police ended up withdrawing the charge and the associated AVO. This was a great result for VD as he had no resulting criminal record and no AVO.

Handed ADVO, Police agree to withdraw application

R v TP

TP had an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order made against him by Police following a domestic incident. Christopher Cole represented TP and his matter was heard at the Downing Centre Local Court.

Cole opposed the orders on behalf of TP, and Police agreed to withdraw the ADVO application against him. TP was very happy with this result.

Charged with several serious offences, all charges successfully withdrawn

R v CK

CK was charged with a number of moderately serious offences including ‘common assault’, ‘assault police officer in execution of duty and occasion actual bodily harm’, and ‘resist an officer’ contrary to the Crimes Act 1900.

Christopher Cole represented CK and argued that the charges should be withdrawn. The matter was heard at Picton Local Court and arguments were successful. All charges were withdrawn and CK was encouraged to pursue a civil claim against the Police Officer’s involved, if he so wished.