Plea Traversal Granted, Found Not Guilty; Supply Prohibited Drug

DJ was charged with ‘Supply prohibited drug >indictable & <commercial quantity’, namely Heroin, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment if prosecuted in the Local Court and 15 years imprisonment if prosecuted in the District Court. DJ has complex chronic health conditions that often render him in excruciating pain. He was receiving inpatient hospital treatment at the time of the offence.

DJ initially pleaded guilty to the offence. He did not fully understand the process or the nature of the charge he was pleading to. DJ sought new representation and made contact with O’Brien & Hudson Solicitors. Chris Cole acted in his matter moving forward.

Chris appeared at the Local Court where he lodged a Section 4 Application / Plea Traversal on DJ’s behalf. His Honour granted that application and a plea of not guilty was entered.

The matter proceeded to Hearing. Chris tendered written materials and made oral submissions on DJ’s behalf. DJ gave evidence and closing submissions were made by the Prosecution. The Magistrate then proceeded to Judgment, ultimately finding DJ not guilty of the offence.

This is an outstanding result for DJ.

Found Not Guilty on 7 Counts, No Penalty on Remaining Sequence, Costs Granted in Defence Favour

TI was charged with eight offences relating to a single traffic incident. Namely, ‘Assault Police Officer in execution of duty w/o ABH’, contrary to s 60(1) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Use offensive language in/near public place/school’, contrary to s 4a(1) Summary Offences Act 1988, two counts of ‘Resist Officer in execution of duty’, contrary to s 58 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Not comply with direction to stop/move etc light vehicle’, contrary to  s 67(1) Road Rules 2014, ‘Not stop at line (intersection with no lights), contrary to s 46(1) Road Rules 2014, ‘Disobey no left turn’, contrary to rule 91 Road Rules 2014 and ‘Not give left change of direction signal with lights’, contrary to s 46(1) Road Rules 2014.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the ‘Disobey no left turn’ offence and pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered to the remaining 7 sequences. Chris Cole acted for TI in these matters.

The matters proceeded to Hearing on which occassion Chris cross examined the Officer in charge. TI was then called to give evidence. Ultimately, Her Honour found TI ‘not guilty’ for each of the offences to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’. Additionally, Her Honour was highly critical of the Officer in charge’s conduct, which was captured by a witness at the time of TI’s arrest, ultimately finding arrests on both occasions were unlawful.

Chris then made an application that the Prosecution pay TI’s professional costs. Her Honour subsequently made an order that NSW Police pay TI’s professional costs.

With respect to the offence which TI pleaded ‘guilty’ to, Her Honour noted the plea and dismissed the charge with no penalty pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

This is an excellent result.

‘Possession of a prescribed / restricted substance’ Proceeds to Hearing, Client Found Not Guilty!

SA was charged with two counts of ‘possession of a prescribed / restricted substance’, contrary to s 16(1) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

The matter proceeded to Hearing where James Castillo appeared for SA. The Officer in Charge was called to give evidence by the Prosecution. In defence SA and her partner gave evidence. James then tendered written materials and made closing submissions on SA’s behalf as to why she ought not be convicted of the offences.

Ultimately, His Honour agreed with the defence case and found SA ‘not guilty’ on both counts. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.

This is an outstanding result.

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. 

Charged with Stalk/Intimidate Offence, Acquitted

GK was charged with, ‘Stalk or Intimidate Intending to Cause Fear of Physical or Mental Harm’ contrary to section 13(1) of Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. His matter proceeded to a defended Hearing where he was represented by Chris Cole. GK gave evidence and the complainant was cross-examined by Chris.

Chris made submissions as to why His Honour would find GK ‘not guilty’ of the above offence. Ultimately, His Honour found GK not guilty and acquitted him of the offence.

This was a great outcome for GK and placed him in a better position concerning his Family Law Proceedings.

'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.  

Charged with 'firing at dwelling-house or buildings', found not guilty at trial

R v MB

MB was charged with ‘firing at dwelling-houses or buildings’ contrary to the Crimes Act 1900. This is a serious charge that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years.

Christopher Cole represented MB and instructed barrister Greg Hoare as Counsel. A plea of not guilty was entered. The presiding Magistrate accepted arguments made on behalf of MB and found him not guilty. This was a great result for MB.  

Three counts of 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm', found not guilty at trial

R v LA

LA was charged with three counts of ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’, contrary to the Crimes Act 1900. Each charge of assault carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. Christopher Cole represented LA. His matter came before the Central Local Court and pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered.

The presiding Magistrate accepted arguments made on behalf of LA and he was found not guilty for all three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault, found not guilty for all charges at trial

R v JP

JP was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault without consent, contrary to the Crimes Act 1900. Christopher Cole represented JP and the matter went to trial at the Parramatta District Court.

Pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered for each of the charges. Grant Brady SC appeared as Counsel. Christopher Cole successfully argued JP’s case and he was found not guilty for all counts. This was a great result for JP as he was able to continue with his employment and move on with his life.