Guilty Plea Results in Fine Only

RK was charged with ‘Destroy or damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Common assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Stalk / intimidation’, contrary to s 13(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and ‘Intentionally choke’, contrary to s 37 Crimes Act 1900.

RK pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the offences of ‘Common assault’, ‘Stalk / intimidation’ and ‘Intentionally choke’. RK pleaded ‘guilty’ to ‘Destroy or damage property’. James Castillo acted for RK at Judgment and Sentence in the Local Court.

With respect to the offences of ‘Common assault’, ‘stalk / intimidation’ and ‘Intentionally choke’, Her Honour accepted RK’s evidence was credible and reliable. Ultimately, Her Honour found RK ‘not guilty’ of these offences.

Her Honour then proceeded to Sentence RK with respect to the ‘Destroy or damage property’ offence. James Castillo tendered written materials and made oral submissions on his behalf. Ultimately, Her Honour convicted RK of the offence, only imposing a fine of $850.00.

This is a great result.

Conditional Release Order Without Conviction

MR was charged with ‘Destroy / damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Stalk / intimidate intend fear physical etc harm’, contrary to s 13(1) Crimes Act 1900. The alleged victim in the incident was MR’s ex-partner.

Pleas of guilty were entered to both charges and the matter proceeded to Sentence. James Castillo tendered materials and made oral submissions on MR’s behalf at the Downing Centre Local Court.

Ultimately, His Honour sentenced MR to a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of 2 years. Under this Order, MR must not commit any offences for the duration of the Order, and he must appear before the Court if called to do so. An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was finalised for the same period.  

This is a very pleasing result, especially noting that MR’s long-term employment could not continue had he received a criminal conviction.

Section 32 Application Granted

KM was charged with ‘Stalk intimidate intend to cause fear of physical etc harm (domestic)’, contrary to s 13(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

Christopher Cole acted for KM in her Section 32 Application. In support of the application, Chris made oral submissions and tendered various materials on KM’s behalf.

After careful consideration, Her Honour allowed the matter to be diverted away from the criminal justice system, taking into account orders that KM engage with her psychologist and a proposed treatment plan for a period of 6 months.

This is a pleasing outcome for KM, as she is now able to move on from the charge and access appropriate treatment.

Released from Custody, Community Corrections Order Granted

GD was charged with two counts of ‘Contravene Prohibition in AVO (Domestic), contrary to Section 14(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, two counts of ‘Stalk/intimidate intend fear Physical etc Harm (Domestic), contrary to Section 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and one count of ‘Destroy or Damage Property’, contrary to Section 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900.

Chris Cole tendered various materials on GD’s behalf which His Honour read and considered.  His Honour released GD from custody immediately and placed him on a Community Corrections Order for a period of 2 years, with a final ADVO concerning the PINOP for the same period. 

This is a very pleasing result for GD.

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.

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.

Charged with numerous serious drug and violence related offences, avoids prison term for Community Corrections Order

R v AC

AC was charged with numerous serious charges, including three counts of ‘stalk/intimidate with intent to cause fear of harm’, ‘use offensive weapon with intent to commit indictable offence’, ‘damage/destroy property’, ‘possess prohibited drug’ as well as ‘driving whilst disqualified’.

To make matters worse AC had also contravened a previous bond to be of Good Behaviour.

Matthew Berrell represented AC and the matter came before Katoomba Local Court. The presiding Magistrate accepted Berrell’s sentencing submissions and chose to impose a Community Corrections Order (CCO) on AC for a period of two years, as well as 200 hours of Community Service work and an order to continue receiving regular counselling sessions.  

This was a fantastic result for AC as he very easily could have been sentenced to a gaol term. Each charge of ‘stalk/intimidate’ carries a maximum sentence of five years, whilst a charge of ‘use offensive weapon’ carries a maximum sentence of seven years. Instead AC was able to remain in the community and receive ongoing mental health treatment.