‘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 Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.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.

Third CRO Without Conviction!

MR was charged with ‘Common assault’ and ‘Affray’, contrary to Crimes Act 1900. MR had recently been found guilty of two domestic violence (DV) related offences, receiving Conditional Release Order’s (CRO’s) without conviction on both charges. James Castillo represented MR in these matters.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the offence of ‘Common assault’ and subsequently, the police withdrew the ‘Affray’ charge. The matter then proceeded to Sentence. James tendered materials and made oral submissions on MR’s behalf as to why a further CRO without conviction was the most appropriate Sentence.

Ultimately, Her Honour found MR guilty of ‘Common assault’ and sentenced him to a CRO without conviction for the duration of 20 months. The CRO is conditional to no further offences being committed, and that MR continues to engage and comply with a mental health treatment plan.

Her Honour made a final Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) for the duration of two years.

Had a conviction been recorded MR would have lost the job he has held for many years and relies upon to support not only himself, but other family members. 

This is an outstanding result and a great relief to MR.

CRO No Conviction Recorded

AL was charged with one count of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, namely cocaine, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. James Castillo represented AL in proceedings.

James tendered a sentence bundle and made oral submissions in support of a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction.

The Magistrate ultimately agreed with James’ submissions, sentencing AL to a CRO without conviction for a period of 12 months.

This is a very pleasing result for AL, particularly given her employment could be terminated if convicted of a criminal offence.  

Multiple Large Commercial Drug Supply and Weapons Charges Result in Minimal Custodial Sentence

GT was charged with multiple counts of ‘Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug’, contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, ‘Possess a prohibited weapon’ contrary to s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 and ‘Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime’, contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900. This is a very serious list of charges.

Chris Cole represented GT in these matters, briefing Counsel Scott Schaudin. GT was suffering from mental health and substance abuse issues at the time of offending.

The matter was listed for Sentence in the District Court, on which occasion Chris Cole and Scott Schaudin tendered a psychological report and character references on GT’s behalf. Counsel then made oral submissions in support of GT’s role, proposing that his role in the offence was lower in objective seriousness than that of the co-accused, and that the material before Her Honour reflects better than good prospects of rehabilitation.

Pleas of guilty were maintained to the charges of ‘Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug’, contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and ‘Possess a prohibited weapon’ contrary to s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. The remaining offences were placed on a Form 1.

Ultimately, Her Honour Sentenced GT to an aggregate Sentence is 5 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years. Taking into account time already served, GT will be eligible to be released on parole this year.

Conviction Overturned on Appeal

JW was charged with one count of ‘Use Inside Information to bet on event’ contrary to s 193Q(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900, and one count ‘Possess Inside Information/communicate other to bet on event’, contrary to s 193Q(2)(c) Crimes Act 1900.  

JW was convicted and Sentenced to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) for a period of 18 months on the ‘Use Inside Information to bet on event’ charge. The ‘Possess Inside Information/communicate other to bet on event’ charge was placed on a Form 1.

Chris Cole lodged a District Court Severity Appeal on JW’s behalf.

Chris Cole briefed Counsel, Phillip Boulten SC, who then made submissions in the District Court concerning why Her Honour ought not convict JW, focussing primarily on the extra-curial punishment JW had suffered as a result of the offending. The Crown submitted that although the offence was serious, Her Honour would not be in error if a conviction was not recorded. Her Honour considered the matter and proceeded to deliver Judgment.

Her Honour ultimately upheld the appeal and quashed the conviction, instead placing JW on a CRO, without conviction, for the duration of 18 months.

This is an outstanding result.

6 Months CRO on Drug-Related Offences – No Conviction

RB was charged with ‘Possess Prohibited Drug’, namely cocaine, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This was RB’s first criminal charge.

 Chris Cole represented RB on Sentence where a plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the offence.

Chris tendered written references and made oral submissions on RB’s behalf. His Honour considered submissions and ultimately agreed a Conditional Release Order (CRO) for a period of 6 months, without conviction, was an appropriate penalty.

This is a very pleasing result, particularly given that RB’s full-time work would be jeopardized, had a conviction been recorded.

Sentenced to CCO on First ‘Drug-Related’ Offence

PS was charged with ‘Owner / occupier knowingly allow use as drug premises – 1st offence’, contrary to s 36y(1)(A) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and ‘Organises or conducts or assists in organising drug premises – 1st offence’, contrary to s 36Z(1)(A) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

James Castillo acted on instructions from PS. Following negotiations with the Prosecution, sequence 2 ‘Organises etc. in organising drug premises’ was withdrawn and a plea of guilty to sequence 1, ‘Owner / occupier knowingly allow use as drug premises’ was entered. The matter then proceeded to Sentence, where James tendered written materials and made oral submissions on PS’s behalf. Ultimately, His Honour Sentenced PS to a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 8 months.

This is a pleasing outcome for PS, notwithstanding his criminal history. 

5 Year Maximum Penalty, Sentenced to Community Corrections Order

HH faced charges of ‘Destroy / damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900, and ‘Stalk / intimidate’, contrary to s 13 Crimes Act 1900. James Castillo acted for HH in the matter. The maximum Sentence for each charge is 5 years imprisonment.  

The matter proceeded to Sentence where James Castillo tendered various materials and made oral submissions on HH’s behalf. Ultimately, His Honour imposed a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 12 months, subject to the conditions that HH is of good behaviour, and must appear before the court if called upon to do so. His Honour made a Compensation Order for damages, and an AVO was finalised for a period of 2 years.

This is a pleasing result for HH.

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.

Conditional Release Order, No Criminal Conviction Recorded

IB faced two assault charges against his ex-partner, namely ‘Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm’, contrary to s 59 Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Common Assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900. Chris Cole represented IB on both charges.

Chris entered discussions with the Prosecution and negotiated to withdraw Sequence 2 ‘Common Assault’, in exchange for a plea of guilty to Sequence 1 ‘Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm’. The Prosecution ultimately agreed to withdraw the ‘Common Assault’ charge.

A plea of guilty was entered to the offence of ‘Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm’ and the matter proceeded to Sentence. Chris presented written and oral submissions on IB’s behalf.

Ultimately, His Honour agreed that IB ought not be convicted. Consequently, IB was placed on a Conditional Release Order without conviction, for the duration of 2 years. The Order requires IB to be of good behaviour for said duration. An AVO was finalised for a period of 2 years.

This is an outstanding result for IB.

‘Possess Prohibited Drug’ Non-Conviction, Placed on Conditional Release Order

TM was charged with ‘Possess Prohibited Drug’, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Chris Cole represented TM in Sentence proceedings. He tendered various materials and made oral submissions concerning why Her Honour ought not convict TM of the offence. Her Honour considered the submissions and ultimately, she did not convict TM, instead placing him on a Conditional Release Order for a period of 2 years. The terms of that order are that TM does not commit any further offences for the duration of that Order.

This is a fantastic result for TM.

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.

Numerous Break & Enter Charges with Extensive Criminal Record, Minimal Custodial Sentence

JT was faced with two pending criminal matters in the Local Court, namely ‘Aggravated break & enter dwelling etc in company steal <=$60000’, contrary to s 112(1)(2) Crimes Act 1900, and ‘Break & enter house etc. Steal value <= $60000’, contrary to s 112(A) Crimes Act 1900. A number of other charges were withdrawn.

JT has an extensive criminal record, having been charged over 70 times in New South Wales. Chris Cole represented JT for Sentencing in both matters. He made oral submissions to the Magistrate on JT’s behalf.

With respect to the ‘Aggravated break & enter etc.’ matter, Her Honour Sentenced JT to 18 months imprisonment, dated to include time already spent in custody, with a non-parole period of 7 months.

With respect to the ‘Break & enter house etc.’ matter, Her Honour Sentenced JT to 15 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 months. This was also dated to include time already spent in custody.

JT will be eligible for parole the month after Sentencing.

This is an outstanding outcome for JT, particularly given the objective seriousness of the charges and JT’s extensive criminal record.

Costs Granted

JK was charged with ‘Stalk/intimidate’, contrary to s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic & Personal Violence) Act 2007 and ‘Common Assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900.

Chris Cole appeared with Simon Buchen SC at Waverley Local Court where His Honour found JK not guilty of both offences. Additionally, His Honour did not make an Apprehended Violence Order.

Counsel then made submissions as to why the Court ought to grant professional costs in JK’s favour.

The matter was listed for Judgment on Costs at the Downing Centre Local Court. His Honour considered submissions and ultimately made an Order that the Prosecution pay all professional legal costs in JK’s matter.

This is an outstanding result.

Insider Betting Charges, Sentenced to Conditional Release Order

JW and BT are co-accused and were each charged with one count of ‘Use Inside Information to bet on event’ contrary to s 193Q(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900, and one count ‘Possess Inside Information/communicate other to bet on event’, contrary to s 193Q(2)(c) Crimes Act 1900.  

Christopher Cole represented both co-accused on separate occasions at the Downing Centre Local Court.

In both matters, Chris Cole tendered various materials on behalf of JW and BT, including written submissions, which His Honour considered. He then made oral submissions in support of said written submissions and His Honour proceeded to Judgment. Ultimately, both parties were convicted and Sentenced to a Conditional Release Order for a period of 18 months on the ‘Use inside information’ charge. In both circumstances the further offence of ‘Possess inside information’ was placed on a Form 1.

This is a good result for JW and BT.

Drug Manufacture Offence - Eligible for Parole Immediately following Sentence

TP was charged with ‘Knowingly take part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug’, contrary to s 24(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Chris Cole represented TP and the matter came before the Parramatta District Court. The matter then proceeded to Sentence where submissions were made and a psychological report was tendered. His Honour Sentenced TP to 3 years 7 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years 5 months, commencing from the date of arrest. This meant TP was eligible for parole at the time of Sentence.

This is a great outcome for TP as it marks the completion of his custodial Sentence.

Eligible for Parole Shortly After Sentence on Serious Aggravated Break & Enter Charges

HP was charged with ‘Aggravated break and enter with intent’, contrary to s 113(2) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Aggravated enter dwelling with intent’, contrary to s 111(2) Crimes Act 1900; ‘Aggravated robbery’, contrary to s 95(1) Crimes Act 1900; ‘Drive motor vehicle on road during disqualification period’, contrary to s 54(1)(a) Road Transport Act 2013; and ‘Take and drive conveyance’, contrary to s 154A(1)(a). This is a significant charge list, particularly noting the aggravating factors. Christopher Cole represented HP in these matters.  

HP pleaded guilty to the offence of ‘Aggravated enter dwelling with intent’, and the charges of ‘Robbery’ and ‘Take and drive conveyance without owner’s consent’ were placed on a Form 1.

HP was Sentenced at Parramatta District Court for the offence of ‘Aggravated enter dwelling with intent’. His Honour Sentenced HP to a total term of imprisonment of 4 years, comprising of a non-parole period of 2 years, dated to include time already spent in custody. HP’s non-parole period is due to expire less than one month from the date of Sentencing.

This is a very pleasing result, particularly considering the objective seriousness of the initial charges.

Section 32 Granted on Multiple Drug Offences

PW was charged with one count of ‘Supply prohibited drug’, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and two counts of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, namely methylamphetamine and gamma butyrolactone, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Chris Cole and Bill O’Brien represented PW in these matters. PW plead guilty to both counts of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, and the charge of ‘Supply prohibited drug’ was withdrawn.

A Section 32 Application was made and subsequently listed for Hearing at the Downing Centre Local Court. In support of the Application Bill O’Brien tendered extensive materials and made oral submissions on PW’s behalf.

Ultimately, Her Honour allowed PW’s matter to be diverted away from the criminal justice system and dismissed the charges pursuant to s 32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, upon the condition PW comply with a supervised treatment plan.  

This is a very pleasing result.

Found Not Guilty, Costs Awarded in Favour of Defendant

JO was found not guilty by a jury on one count of each ‘Sexual intercourse without consent’, pursuant to 61I Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Assault commit an act of indecency’, pursuant to 61L Crimes Act 1900.

An application for a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (The Act) was made on JO’s behalf based on the Crown witness to be very substantially lacking credit. A certificate was granted by the District Court Magistrate, under The Act, based on His Honour’s opinion that:

“if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings; and

there was no act or omission of the defendant that contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings.”

This is a great outcome and a huge relief to JO.

Max Penalty 10 Years Imprisonment, Sentenced to 10 Months Community Corrections Order

TN was charged with one count of ‘Embezzlement by a clerk/servant’ contrary to s 157 Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Christopher Cole represented TN on Sentence at Newtown Local Court. He made oral submissions and tendered character references on her behalf.

His Honour considered these submissions and ultimately, TN was Sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for a duration of 10 months.

This is a pleasing result for TN, as she is now able to move forward from this incident and commence a University degree in the New Year.