Your Custom Text Here
AF was charged with ‘Larceny’, contrary to section 117 Crimes Act 1900. She entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ to the offence and her matter was set down for Hearing.
At the day of Hearing, no prosecution witness turned up including the office-in-charge. The Prosecutor sought an adjournment application. James Castillo opposed the application. The Presiding Magistrate refused the adjournment application and consequently, the charge was withdrawn and dismissed.
MD was charged with ‘Larceny’ contrary to section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.
James Castillo represented MD at the Central Local Court on which occasion the matter was listed for Sentence. James Castillo tendered materials and made oral submissions on MD’s behalf where His Honour sentenced MD to one month imprisonment, backdated for time already being served.
This is a great result as MD is in the process of applying for permanent residency in Australia and hopes to continue an apprenticeship.
R v SB
SB was charged with two counts of ‘larceny’ contrary to section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900. Each count of larceny carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. The case against SB was strong, with multiple witness accounts and CCTV footage.
Bill O’Brien represented SB and the matter came before the Downing Center Local Court. A section 32 application was made pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. This section states that a presiding magistrate may sentence persons suffering from a mental illness or condition to treatment, rather than to a term of imprisonment.
The matter came before Magistrate Susan MckIntyre, who accepted the application and chose to dismiss the charges against SB and order her to continue her mental health treatment.
This was a fantastic result for SB, as she was very concerned about the impact that a criminal record would have on her business and career.
