Charge and ADVO Withdrawn by Prosecution Prior to Hearing

SM was charged with one count of ‘Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse’, contrary to Section 4(1)(B) Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. Consequently, the Police had made an Application for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) between the victim and the accused. The victim and the accused are ex partners.

Christopher Cole attended Waverley Local Court with SM where the charge and Application for an ADVO were listed for Hearing. After lengthy discussions with the prosecution, Police agreed to withdraw the charge and the application for an ADVO just prior to Hearing. Accordingly, the charge and ADVO were withdrawn.

This is a very pleasing outcome for SM.

Aggravated Break, Enter and Steal, Breach of CCO – Sentenced to ICO

NB was charged with ‘Aggravated Break, Enter and Steal’ contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900. At the time of the offence NB was on a Community Corrections Order for a previous ‘Affray’ charge.  

Christopher Cole represented NB on Sentencing at the Downing Centre Local Court. He tendered various materials and made oral submissions on NB’s behalf. He raised the subjective circumstances at the time of the offending, including ongoing mental health conditions and drug addiction.

With respect to the breach of Community Corrections Order Her Honour did not take action. With respect to the ‘Aggravated Break, Enter and Steal’ offence, Her Honour imposed an Intensive Corrections Order for a duration of 12 months. Her Honour made additional orders to continue with rehabilitation and treatment, and to comply with a supervision plan.

This was a pleasing result for NB, as she was able to avoid a custodial sentence and continue to access treatment in a community setting.  

Local Court Plea Traversal Success

SM was charged with one count of ‘Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse’, contrary to Section 4(1)(B) Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. The victim and the accused are ex partners.

SM initially pleaded guilty on the advice of her previous legal representative. SM sought advice and representation from Chris Cole. Chris Cole made submissions as to why a plea of guilty ought to not stand. His Honour agreed with the submissions and ordered the plea of guilty be traversed. A plea of not guilty was then entered and a hearing date allocated.

This is a great outcome for SM.

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.

Successful Supreme Court Release Application, Released on Bail

DF was charged with 15 drug-related offences, including ‘Supply Large Commercial Quantity’ methylamphetamine, as well as proceeds of crime. DF had spent the last 5 months in custody on remand. Chris Cole submitted a Supreme Court Release Application on DF’s behalf.

Chris Cole appeared with Michael Finnane QC at the Supreme Court on her Release Application. The Crown opposed Bail, noting the ‘show cause’ requirement. The matter was adjourned to allow the Judge to consider the material and submissions.

The following day, His Honour gave his decision on the Release Application. His Honour determined that DF had ‘shown cause’ as to why her continued detention was not justified and that conditions could be imposed to ameliorate any Bail risks. Accordingly, DF was granted conditional Bail.

This is a very pleasing result which has allowed DF to return to her family home where she is able to care for her mother and young children whilst awaiting Trial.

Driving Whilst Licence Suspended with Illicit Drug Present in Oral Fluid, Unrestrained Passenger and Possession of Prohibited Drug – Minor Fines and Conditional Release Order

PZ was faced with charges of ‘Drive motor vehicle with illicit drug present in oral fluid’, contrary to Section 111(1)(a) Road Transport Act 2013, namely cannabis and cocaine, ‘Possess prohibited drug’, contrary to section 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, ‘Drive motor vehicle whilst suspended’, contrary to section 54(3)(a) Road Transport Act 2013 and Drive with one unrestrained passenger’, contrary to section 265(3) Road Rules 2014.

Chris Cole represented PZ in these matters at Waverley Local Court. With respect to the offences of ‘Drive with illicit drug present in oral fluid’, his second instance of this same offence in the previous 5 years, and ‘Drive whilst license suspended’, Her Honour, without proceeding to conviction, ordered PZ enter a Conditional Release Order for a period of 2 years. With respect to the offence of ’Possess prohibited drug’, Her Honour convicted PZ and fined him $350. With respect to the ‘Drive vehicle with unrestrained passenger’ Her Honour convicted PZ and fined him $500.

These are, frankly, outstanding results, noting in particular that PZ already had a history of drug possession and driving offences.

Multiple Offences, Minimal Sentence

KN was charged for the following offences; ‘Drive conveyance taken without consent of owner’, contrary to section 154a(1)(B) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period’, contrary to section 54(1)(A) Road Transport Act 2013, ‘Possess unauthorised pistol’, contrary to section 7(1) Firearms Act 1996,  ‘Possess prohibited drug’, contrary to section 10(1) ‘Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, ‘Dishonestly obtain property by deception’, contrary to section 192e(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900, two counts of ‘Larceny value <= $2,000, contrary to section 117 Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Destroy or damage property <= $2,000, contrary to section 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900. This was a substantial number of charges for KN.

Chris Cole represented KN in these matters at Liverpool Local Court. KN had two sets of charges Listed for Sentence. The first set of charges related to a break and enter and three further offences were taken into account on a Form 1, those being ‘Drive stolen conveyance’ and 2 x ‘Drive while disqualified’. The second set of matters related to the charges of ‘Possess firearm’, ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage’, ‘Possess prohibited drug’ and ‘Drive while disqualified’. His Honour sentenced KN to an aggregate sentence of 20 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months backdated to time already spent in custody. This means KN will be eligible for release before Christmas this year.  

In addition, His Honour quashed all Habitual Traffic Offender Declarations, and imposed 12 months disqualification periods for each of the ‘Drive disqualified’ offences. KN will be eligible to obtain a driver’s licence in 12 months’ time.

This is a very pleasing result for KN, especially given the extensive list of charges and his habitual driving offences.

Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, Sentenced to 15 Months

MD is a young man with an already extensive criminal record. On this occasion he was charged with ‘Assault causing actual bodily harm in company’, pursuant to section 59 (2) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment. At the time of arrest MD was on remand for an unrelated offence to be Listed later this year. During this time period he had also received two terms of full-time imprisonment for ‘Shoplifting’ and ‘Larceny’.

The assault offence was deemed somewhere on the scale between the low to middle range of objective seriousness.

Chris Cole represented MD at Central Local Court where he tendered materials and made submissions on MD’s behalf. The matter was Listed for Sentence where Her Honour Sentenced MD to a term of imprisonment of 15 months, comprising a non-parole period of 8 months, backdated to time already spent in custody.

With the view of the nature of the offence and the maximum penalty that could have been imposed, this is a very pleasing result for MD.

Conditional Release Order Granted, No Conviction

JM was charged with ‘Break & Enter house etc steal value <= $60,000’, contrary to section 112 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Possess/attempt to Prescribed Restricted Substance’ contrary to section 16(1) of Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966. ‘Goods suspected stolen in custody of other’ contrary to section 527C Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc’, contrary to section 68J(1)(b) Passenger Transport (general) Regulation 2017.

In the Local Court JM was convicted of the ‘Break & Enter’ charge and was ordered to enter a Community Corrections Order pursuant to section 8 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for a period of 2 years. The remaining charges were placed on a Form 1.

An Appeal was filed to the District Court in relation to the severity of JM’s sentence.

Chris Cole represented JM at his District Court Appeal where he made submissions as to why Her Honour ought to allow the appeal and not convict JM of the ‘Break & Enter’ offence, instead placing him on a Conditional Release Order (without conviction), imposing a condition that he adhere to the Treatment Plan proposed by his treating psychologist. Her Honour was receptive to these submissions and allowed the appeal. JM was able to enter a Conditional Release Order (without conviction) supervised by Community Corrections and access a structured psychological treatment plan.

This was a very pleasing result for JM.

Sentence Appealed, Appeal Granted

SV was charged with four offences – namely, two counts of ‘Supply prohibited drug’, one count of ‘Deal with proceeds of crime’ and one count of ‘Conduct drug premises while child present’.

Chris Cole represented SV in these matters. On the initial charges Chris was able to secure strict but fair bail conditions for SV while he awaited trial.

Chris Cole entered pleas of guilty to ‘Supply prohibited drug’ and ‘Deal with proceeds of crime’ on SV’s behalf. The second charge of ‘Supply prohibited drug’ and ‘Conduct drug premises while child present’ were withdrawn.

Her Honour sentenced SV to a term of full-time imprisonment of 18 months, comprising a non-parole period of 12 months. Chris Cole immediately lodged an appeal to the District Court.

At the Sentence Appeal Chris Cole tendered materials and made oral submissions on SV’s behalf on the severity of the sentence imposed. His Honour was not satisfied that he could order the Sentence be served by way of Intensive Correction Order (ICO). However, His Honour accepted that the Sentence was excessive and granted SV’s Appeal. He imposed a lesser sentence of 12 months imprisonment and a non-parole period of 7 months.

This was a satisfactory outcome.

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. 

Found Not Guilty of Sexual Intercourse without Consent

JC was charged with one count of ‘Sexual intercourse without consent’ contrary to the Crimes Act 1900.

Chris Cole represented JC at the Parramatta Children’s Court in relation to this matter where His Honour found JC not guilty of that offence. His Honour found uncertainties concerning the complainant’s evidence and accepted JC’s evidence. His Honour did not make an Apprehended Violence Order.

This is a wonderful result for JC.

Appeal Granted, Suspension Revoked

DK was charged with ‘driving with an illicit substance present in oral fluid, urine or blood’, namely, cocaine.

Chris Cole represented DK and made submissions to the court on the likely impact a driver’s license suspension would have on DK as a self-employed labourer. Prior to the Appeal Hearing DK completed the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program.

His Honour granted the appeal and quashed the suspension.

This was a huge relief for DK.

RMS Appeal, Suspension Quashed

TO had his driver’s license suspended for ‘driving with an illicit substance present in oral fluid, urine or blood’, namely, methylamphetamine.

Chris Cole represented TO in his Appeal. Prior to appearing TO completed the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program. TO is self employed and reliant on his driver’s license to perform work. Chris Cole made submissions to the court on the likely effect of the driver’s license suspension on TO.

His Honour was of the view that a license suspension was unnecessary for the appealant and an Appeal was granted. Ultimately, His Honour revoked the suspension imposed by RMS.

This was a huge relief for TO as his driver’s license is essential to his financial stability.

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.

Common Assault on Ex-partner, CCO Imposed

LA was charged with three sets of assault offences. The first set proceeded to Hearing but was dismissed when the complainant admitted she lied to police. In relation to the second set of offences, the charges were withdrawn based on unreliable evidence from the complainant following her admission on the first set of allegations.

On the last set of offences, LA was charged with ‘Common Assault’, two counts of ‘Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm’ and three counts of ‘failure to appear’. After sending Written Representations to Withdraw Charges, the prosecution withdrew the AOABH charges.

LA pleaded guilty to ‘Common assault’, contrary to section 61 Crimes Act 1900, and three counts of ‘failure to appear’, contrary to section 79(1) Bail Act 2013.

In relation to the common assault offence, Her Honour imposed a Community Corrections Order pursuant to section 8 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for 6 months. In relation to the failure to appear offences, Her Honour convicted LA with no other penalty, pursuant to section 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

This is an outstanding result for LA.

Section 32 Applied, Heard and Granted

GS was charged with two offences namely, ‘Intentionally or recklessly destroy/damage property’, contrary to section 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, and ‘Unlawful entry on inclosed lands’, contrary to section 4(1)(b) Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901.

GS was diagnosed with First Episode Manic Psychosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder. His treating psychiatrist formed the opinion that he was in the midst of the first episode of his illness at the time of the offence. He was of the view that the offending behaviour was a direct consequence of the mental condition GS was suffering from.

GS made a section 32 application pursuant to Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900 for his matter to be dealt with under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900 instead of under the criminal justice system.

During section 32 Hearing, Chris Cole tendered materials on GS’s behalf including a medical report by GS’s treating Psychiatrist and a letter from a doctor in Mental Health Acute Care confirming they were supervising GS’s compliance with his treatment plan.

Her Honour accepted the treating psychologist’s expert opinion and accepted that GS was suffering from a mental illness, and that it was more appropriate that his matter be dealt with under the Mental Health Act than the criminal justice system.

Ultimately, the offences were dismissed, and GS was discharged upon entering a treatment plan for 6 months supervised by his doctor.

Charged with Seven Serious Offences, CCO Imposed

RA was charged with seven serious offences namely, two counts of ‘Supply of prohibited drugs’, contrary to section 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, three counts of ‘Possess prohibited weapon’, contrary to section 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, one count of ‘Possess unregistered firearm’ contrary to section 36(1) Firearm Act 1996; and one count of ‘Goods in custody’, contrary to section 527C(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900.

James Castillo successfully negotiated the matter with the Police Prosecutors to withdraw the ‘goods in custody’ offence and place the two counts of ‘possess prohibited weapon’ and ‘possess unregistered firearm’ on Form 1.

RA pleaded guilty to the two supply prohibited drugs offences and one count of ‘possess prohibited weapon’. Chris Cole represented RA on his Sentence and made submissions on why CCO is an appropriate sentence. His Honour agreed and imposed a Community Corrections Order for 12 months pursuant to section 8 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 concerning the supply of prohibited drug offences and the same Order for 30 months for the possess prohibited weapon offence taking into account all the charges on Form 1 with an additional condition to complete 180 hours of Community Service.

This is a pleasing result for RA given he originally faced 7 serious charges and having breached an existing CRO and CCO when he committed the above offences.

Two Charges Withdrawn, One Plea of Guilty, One Charge Placed on Form 1

BE was charged with three offences – ‘Aggravated break & enter and commit serious indictable offence’, contrary to section 112(2) Crimes Act 1990; ‘Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen’, contrary to section 527c(1)(A); and ‘Aggravated break & enter dwelling in company steal < = $60,000’, contrary to section 112(2) Crimes Act 1900.

James Castillo successfully negotiated on BE’s behalf to have the offences of ‘Aggravated break, enter and steal’ and ‘Enter enclosed land without lawful excuse’ withdrawn. A plea of guilty was entered to ‘Stealing from a dwelling house’, contrary to section 148 Crimes Act 1900 and the offence of ‘Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen’ was placed on Form 1.

Her Honour sentenced BE to 18 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months. This is a pleasing result for BE, particularly in light of the objective seriousness of the initial charges.

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.