Convicted with mid-range drink-driving, small fine and no term of imprisonment imposed

JB was charged with ‘driving with middle range PCA’ contrary to section 110 (4)(A) of the Road Transport Act 2013 after a finding of 0.114 blood alcohol concentration. The offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment for 9 months, a maximum fine of $2,200 or both for first offence.

Chris Cole represented JB and the matter came before the Sutherland Local Court.

Chris tendered materials including Affidavit and Character References on behalf of JB. The Presiding Magistrate imposed a fine of only $1,000 and a 3-month mandatory interlock order with no term of imprisonment.

With the seriousness of the driving offence, this is an impressive result for JB.

Successful severity appeal, sentence significantly reduced

R v MV

MV was charged with one count of murder contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900. He pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 16 years and 2 months.

Chris Cole filed a severity appeal on behalf of MV in the Court of Criminal Appeal. This appeal was successful and MV was re-sentenced to a period of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months.

This was a great result for MV considering the maximum penalty for a charge of murder is a life sentence of imprisonment.

Charged with seven offences including assault an officer and resist police, successful s 32 application

R v JB

JB was charged with seven offences including fail to leave premises, resist police, assault an officer in the execution of their duty and more.

The charges arose after JB attended a music festival and was denied entry due to intoxication.

Chris Cole represented JB and noted that a section 32 application pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act would be appropriate due to JB’s mental state at the time of offending.

Medical reports were obtained and the matter came before Her Honour Wynhausen at the Burwood Local Court. Her Honour accepted the application, and ordered JB to continue his mental health treatment plan as an alternative to a criminal conviction.

This was an excellent result for JB as he was able to maintain his clear criminal record, as well as access the medical services that he required.

Drove whilst licence was suspended, no conviction recorded

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.

Arrested for drug possession one day into Conditional Release Order, no conviction recorded

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.

Charged with drink-driving (low-range), avoids criminal conviction

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.

Caught with prohibited drug, charge dismissed with no criminal record or bond

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.

Convicted for damaging property, raised visa concerns - on appeal no conviction

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.

Drives whilst disqualified three times, manages to avoid conviction

R v JF

JF was charged with driving whilst disqualified in 2018. Chris Cole representd JF and his matter was adjourned in December 2018 so that he may obtain an interlock licence.

In the intervening period before this licence was obtained JF committed two further offences of driving whilst disqualified.

JF’s matter came before the Manly Local Court and Christopher Cole persuaded the presiding Magistrate not to record convictions against him. Instead he was sentenced pursuant to section 9(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and placed on three times Conditional Release Orders for the duration of two years.

This was an outstanding result for JF considering that he had re-offended two times. He was able to avoid a criminal record.

Serious sexual assault charge, successful negotiations and charge dismissed pursuant to s10(1)(a)

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.

Possess prohibited drug, Section 10(1)(a) dismissal even with previous Conditional Release Order

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.

Show cause bail, bail granted, commercial quantity prohibited drug

R v KD

On 26 March 2019 Christopher Cole appeared in the Supreme Court of NSW on a ‘show cause’ release application for the accused KD.

KD was charged with supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, as well as an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug.

KD was also on bail for other alleged offences at the time of his arrest.

Both the commercial quantity charge and the fact that KD was on bail at the time of his arrest, triggered two ‘show cause’ events.

A substantial amount of the material was tendered on KD’s behalf and eventually the judge determined that KD had shown cause as to why his detention was no longer justified. He was released on strict conditional bail.

Considering KD had to show cause for two events, this was a fantastic result for the client. The matter remains on foot in the Local Court.

Charged with larceny, avoids criminal conviction under the Mental Health Act

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.

Charged with dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage, has charges dismissed

R v GC

GC was charged with one count of ‘dishonestly obtain a financial advantage’ ($500,000.00) contrary to section 192D of the Crimes Act 1900.

GC pleaded not guilty and was committed to stand Trial in the Sydney District Court.

Chris Cole instructed counsel at Trial. Following a successful application to have the trial separated from that of the accused, the Director of Public Prosecutions gave a direction that there were to be no further proceedings against GC and the charge was dismissed.

GC had been on Bail for over three years when his charge was dismissed. This direction was a great relief for the client and a fantastic result.

Bail granted for very serious drug supply charges

R v MC

On 5 March 2019 Chris Cole made a Release Application at Albury Local Court on behalf of MZ. MZ was charged with 37 drug-related offences, including numerous supplies and two counts of ‘Supply Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug’, namely Methylamphetamine. The Supply Large Commercial Quantity charges trigger the ‘Show Cause’ requirement on Bail. Chris also had the further hurdle that an application for Bail had previously been made in the Local Court.

Chris made submissions to the learned Magistrate that the delay in prosecuting his client’s matter had been untenable; the client having spent 7 months in custody without being served a ‘Charge Certificate’ by the ODPP. Chris also made various other submissions in support of his client’s Bail. The Magistrate, albeit reluctantly, agreed with the submissions put forth and granted MZ strict conditional Bail. The matter continues.

Charged with mid-range drink driving for the third time, manages to avoid imprisonment by way of Community Corrections Order

R v SP

SP was charged with one count of ‘mid-range PCA’ contrary to the Road Transport Act 2013. He was charged after he had a collision with a parked vehicle and police attended the scene.

The matter was quite serious as this was the third drink driving offence that SP was considered. Compounding the situation was the fact that his nine year-old son was in the back seat of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Matthew Berrell appeared for SP at the Wollongong Local Court and persuaded the presiding magistrate to impose a Community Corrections Order on SP as opposed to a term of imprisonment.

This was a great result for SP as he was able to continue his career and family life and avoid incarceration.

Elderly man wrongly found guilty for multiple animal cruelty offences, successful appeal results in clear record and dogs returned

R v NW

NW is a 77 year old man who was charged with five offences relating to animal cruelty. NW did not understand the nature of the charges against him. His dogs were not in good condition but this was due to them being incredibly old rather than badly cared for. NW’s first lawyer advised him to plead guilty despite the fact that he was not guilty of the charges. NW was convicted, and appealed to the District Court of New South Wales to reverse his original pleas of guilty.

Matthew Berrell took over NW’s case for the appeal. Berrell was successful in his application to traverse the guilty pleas. The matter was remitted back to the Local Court and Berrell appeared on behalf of NW for sentence.

The prosecution agreed to withdraw four of the charges made against NW, and he pled guilty to the final charge. NW received a Good Behaviour bond for this charge.

This was a great result for NW as he was able to clear his criminal record, and also was allowed to have his dog back.

Charged with supplying 74g Ice whilst already serving a sentence for serious drug supply, avoids extra prison time

R v BS

BS was charged with supplying 74 grams of Ice, whilst on bail for a previous serious drug supply offence. Whilst awaiting trial BS was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for numerous other drug supply charges that had occurred prior to this offence.

Matthew Berrell represented BS and made submissions that the term of imprisonment for his latest drug supply charge should run concurrently with the sentence he was already serving. This would avoid BS having to serve an additional lengthy term of imprisonment on top of his current sentence.

These submissions were accepted and the Court backdated BS’s sentence so that it ran concurrently with the sentences he was currently serving. The result of this was that he was able to be released on parole that same day that he was sentenced.

This was a great result for BS as he was able to return to the community immediately, rather than serve an additional number of years incarcerated.

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.  

Intensive Corrections Order granted for three counts of 'dishonestly obtain financial advantage'

R v LD

LD was charged with three counts of ‘dishonestly obtain financial advantage’ contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. This is a very serious charge that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, LD had a criminal history of fraud-related offences that further increased the seriousness of his case.

Chris Cole represented LD and the matter was heard at the Downing Centre Local Court. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO). An ICO is a type of imprisonment that allows offenders to serve their time in the community, under several restrictions. In this case LD was ordered to abstain from alcohol and drugs, enter a Gambling Treatment Program and commit no further offences.

This was an amazing result considering the seriousness of the charges. LD was able to remain in the community and receive the treatment that he needed rather than incarceration.