Your Custom Text Here
ST was charged with ‘Drive while prohibited drug present in oral fluid’, namely cannabis.
Chris Cole tendered material and oral submissions on ST’s behalf as to why Her Honour ought not to convict him. Her honour agreed and ST was placed on a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of six months.
This was a great outcome for ST as it did not impede on his future hopes of joining the Australian Defence Force and he was able to continue driving.
CD was charged with the offence of ‘Driving with Low-Range PCA’. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. Chris Cole represented him on his sentence submissions. Chris tendered materials on his behalf and made oral submissions as to why he should not be convicted. His Honour agreed and imposed a Conditional Release Order without conviction pursuant to section 9(1)(b) of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 subject to good behaviour bond for two years.
This is a pleasing result for CD as a conviction which leads to license suspension would greatly affect his own business requiring him to drive long distances each day and eventually affect his ability to provide for his wife and newborn baby.
R v MT
MT was charged with ‘drive whilst licence suspended’ contrary to section 54(3) of the Road Transport Act. That offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of six months, and a maximum fine of $3,300.00.
Chris Cole represented MT and the matter came before the Downing Centre Local Court.
Affidavits and character references were tendered, and the presiding Magistrate chose not to record a conviction against MT. The matter was dismissed pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
This was a great result for MT who did not receive a criminal record and was able to continue driving.
R v TM
TM was charged with ‘possessing a prohibited drug’, namely cocaine, contrary to section 10 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.
Unfortunately for TM, at the time he was charged he was one day into a Conditional Release Order which was imposed by the Court for a driving matter.
TM pleaded guilty to ‘possessing a prohibited drug’, and the matter proceeded to sentence in the Downing Centre Local Court on 24 April 2019.
TM had undertaken a substantial amount of rehabilitation and community service work. Chris Cole appeared for TM at the sentence.
Chris Cole convinced the magistrate not to take any action on the breach of the Conditional Release Order. TM was given a further opportunity, and a further Conditional Release Order without conviction was imposed by the magistrate.
This was a great result for the client, as he could maintain his conviction-free criminal record and good character.
R v DM
DM was charged with ‘drive with low-range PCA’ contrary to section 110 of the Road Transport Act 2013.
Chris Cole represented DM and obtained extensive subjective material in order to prepare for his matter.
DM came before the Downing Centre Local Court and the presiding Magistrate accepted this material, and chose not to record a conviction. DM was placed on a Conditional Release Order for the duration of 12 months pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
This was a great result for DM as he avoided a criminal record.
R v SK
SK was charged with ‘possess prohibited drug’ contrary to section 10(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985.
Chris Cole represented SK in the Downing Centre Local Court.
The presiding Magistrate accepted representations made on behalf of SK, and dismissed the matter pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
She did not receive a criminal conviction.
This was a great result for SK as she was able to avoid any criminal record.
R v SV
SV pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one count of ‘destroy/damage property’ contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act 1900.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
Chris Cole did not act for SV in the Local Court. In the Local Court the Magistrate convicted and fined SV for the offence. This was problematic for SV as he was on a bridging visa and had applied for permanent residency.
Chris Cole appeared on appeal in the District Court at Parramatta on the 11th April 2019.
Chris made submissions to the learned Judge as to why SV ought not to be convicted of the offence. The Judge agreed, upheld the appeal and instead placed SV on a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of nine months.
This result meant that SV’s ‘visa issues’ were obviated.
This was a great result as SV was married and had a young child born in Australia. He was able to remain with his family.
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.
R v DS
On 2 April 2019, Chris Cole appeared for DS in the Local Court of NSW. DS was charged with and pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited drug.
DS was in an unfortunate position in that he had previously been found guilty of an offence and sentenced to a Conditional Release Order without conviction, pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act.
The previous Conditional Release Order expired two months prior to the commission of this offence.
After material was tendered and submissions were made for a further non conviction, the presiding magistrate deemed it inexpedient to record a conviction, and additionally dismissed the matter without imposing a Conditional Release Order.
This meant that the charge was dismissed in its entirety. This was another fantastic result, one in which DS could maintain his good character and standing within the community.
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.
R v EH
EH was charged with one count of ‘common assault’, contrary to the Crimes Act 1900. A charge of common assault carries a maximum term of imprisonment of two years. Christopher Cole represented EH and a plea of guilty was entered at the Burwood Local Court.
The presiding magistrate accepted representations made on behalf of EH and sentenced her pursuant to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1995. No conviction was recorded and instead EH was placed on a Conditional Release Order to be of good behaviour for 18 months. This was a fantastic result for EH as she was able to maintain a clear criminal record.
R v JG
JG was charged with one count of ‘destroy/damage property’ contrary to the Crimes Act 1900. This charge carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. Christopher Cole represented JG and his matter was heard at the Sutherland Local Court.
JG was sentenced under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and was found guilty without proceeding to a conviction. He was placed on a Conditional Release Order for a period of 12 months. This allowed JG to maintain his liberty and was a great result considering the severity of the facts and charge laid against him.
