Sentenced to Four years out of a Maximum Life-time Imprisonment

MA was charged with an offence of ‘Manufacture prohibited drug > large commercial (4.82kg methylamphetamine)’, contrary to section 24(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life-time imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 15 years and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units (or $605,000.)

MA entered a guilty plea in the Local Court and he was committed for Sentence at the District Court. James Castillo represented MA in his matter, briefing Counsel Linda Barnes.

At Sentence, James and Linda tendered a psychological report on MA’s behalf. Linda further prepared written submissions supported by oral submissions in support of MA’s role in the offending.

Ultimately, His Honour sentenced MA to 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

MA was extremely happy about the outcome of his matter.

Not guilty of two counts of Common Assault

LD was charged with a count of ‘Excluded person re-enter licensed premises’, contrary to section 77 of the Liquor Act 2007, and two counts of ‘Common Assault’, contrary to section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900. LD entered a guilty plea on re-entering a licensed premises after being excluded and the remaining offences were defended.
Chris Cole acted for LD at his Hearing. The prosecution relied on the evidence provided by the complainants and a CCTV footage that captured the incident. Chris called LD to give evidence to establish self-defence. Submissions were then made by each of the Prosecution and Defence.

The Magistrate ultimately found LD, ‘not guilty’ of each of the offences of common assault and both offences were dismissed. With respect to LD’s guilty plea on re-entering a licensed premise after being excluded, the Magistrate fined him the sum of $1,100.00.

LD was very pleased with the outcome of his matter, noting that the maximum penalty for a common assault is 2 years imprisonment and the maximum fine for the other offence is $5,500.00

Successful Negotiation, Client escaped Imprisonment Sentence

OZ was charged with two counts of ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm’, contrary to section 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Such offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. OZ instructed Chris Cole to enter a guilty plea on one of the counts of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm and negotiate to reduce the charge of the other count.

Chris entered negotiations with the prosecution and successfully managed to reduce the offence of ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ to ‘Common Assault’ which only carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. OZ then entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of Common Assault. The Facts were also varied to reflect the new charge.
OZ’s matter then proceeded to Sentence. Chris made submissions that imprisonment was not the appropriate penalty for OZ’s offences. The Sentencing Magistrate agreed and placed OZ on a Community Corrections Order for a period of 18 months with an additional condition that OZ complete the EQUIPS Domestic Violence Program.

This is an outstanding result for OZ, considering the objective seriousness of the offences.

Plea Offer Accepted

SA was charged with seven offences, namely, (1) ‘Menacing driving’, contrary to section 118(1) Road Transport Act 2013, (2) ‘Negligent driving’, contrary to section 117(1)(c) Road Transport Act 2013, (3)’Stop on path/strip’, contrary to section 197(1) Road Rules 2014, (4) ‘Not give particulars to other driver’, contrary to section 287(1) Road Rules 2014, (5) ‘Common Assault’, contrary to section 61 Crimes Act 1900, (6) Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm’, contrary to section 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, and (7) Use of offensive weapon with intent to commit indictable offence’, contrary to section 33b(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900.

SA sought Chris Cole’s legal advice and representation. Chris successfully negotiated a plea offer that SA would enter pleas of guilty to menacing driving, common assault and park on nature strip on the basis that the remaining offences were to be withdrawn.

At Sentence, Chris tendered various medical materials and made oral submissions, primarily focusing on SA’s mental state and nexus between his mental state and his offences. The Sentencing Magistrate accepted these materials and found that SA’s moral culpability was significantly reduced, due to his mental illness. The Magistrate placed SA on a Community Corrections Order for 6 months with respect to the common assault, and on another Community Corrections Order for 14 months with respect to menacing driving, which was to be served concurrently. The Magistrate convicted SA with no further penalty with respect to park on nature strip. The Magistrate also disqualified SA from driving only for a period of 12 months, that being the minimum period of disqualification for his offence.

This is a very pleasing result for SA as it allows him to comply with his medication regime.

No Complainant, AVO Withdrawn

A Provisional Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was issued against TH in protection of his wife. TH retained Chris Cole to represent him in defending the AVO. The AVO Application was then listed for Hearing at Waverley Local Court.

On the Hearing day, the Court was made aware that the Officer in Charge was not notified of the Hearing date. Consequently, the person in need of protection (PINOP), the wife, was not subpoenaed. The Prosecution sought an adjournment to allow the PINOP to be subpoenaed. Chris opposed the adjournment application and made submissions as to why an adjournment should not be granted. The Magistrate agreed with Chris and refused the Prosecution’s application for the adjournment. Subsequently, the AVO Application was withdrawn and the matter was dismissed. 

From Aggravated Sexual Touching to Common Assault – No Conviction

US was charged with two sexual offences, namely, ‘Sexually touch another person without consent’, contrary to section 61KC(a) Crimes Act 1900, and ‘Intentionally sexually touch child 10 years or older and under 16 years’, contrary to section 66DB(a) Crimes Act 1900.

Prior to the Hearing commencing, Chris Cole entered a without prejudice discussion with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) concerning possibly resolving the matter without needing to proceed to a defended Hearing. Chris successfully negotiated that both matters were to be withdrawn in exchange of a plea of guilty to a single count of ‘Common Assault’, contrary to section 61 Crimes Act. The Facts on Sentence were amended to reflect the amended offence.

At Sentence, Chris tendered various subjective materials and made oral submissions on behalf of US. Ultimately, the Sentencing Magistrate sentenced US to a Conditional Release Order, without conviction, for 2 years. A Final AVO was also issued.

This is an excellent result for US, particularly noting there is no conviction and the plea of guilty to the common assault charge does not attract registration on the Child Protection Register.

Only 2 Years Imprisonment for a Plea to Knowing Take Part in Supply of 1,130g Heroin

DW was charged with ‘Supply Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug (Heroin)’, contrary to section 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty for this offence is ‘life’ imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 15 years and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units (or $605,000.)

Upon negotiating with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Chris Cole succeeded in having the charge reduced to ‘Knowingly take part in the supply of large commercial quantity of prohibited drug (heroin)’, to appropriately reflect DW’s role in the offending. This offence carries the same maximum penalty.  

Chris briefed Counsel Nancy Mikhail to act for DW at his sentence proceedings at the District Court. A comprehensive sentence bundle of DW’s subjective materials was prepared and tendered at his proceedings, supplemented by oral submissions. Ultimately, DW was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, comprising of a non-parole period of 15 months.

This is an outstanding outcome for DW, particularly noting the serious nature and maximum penalty of the offence.

Young Person found ‘Not Guilty’ of 7 Sexual Offences

AM, a young person, was charged with six counts of ‘Sexually touch another person with consent’, contrary to section 61KC(a) Crimes Act 1900, and a single count of ‘Aggravated sexual assault’, contrary to section 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900.

AM pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all charges and his matter proceeded to Hearing. Chris Cole represented AM at his Hearing which proceeded over four (4) days. The Prosecution called the complainant to give evidence as well as numerous prosecution witnesses, some of which were declared unfavourable witnesses. The defence called AM to give evidence as well as another civilian witness and various character referees.

The Magistrate provided a lengthy Judgment and ultimately found AM ‘not guilty’ of each count on the Indictment. Further, the Magistrate dismissed the Application for a Final Apprehended Violence Order for the protection of the complainant, noting Her Honour’s findings at the Hearing.

This is a huge relief for AM as his future was at stake. The maximum penalty for each offence of sexual touching is 5 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for Aggravated sexual assault is 20 years imprisonment. A finding of guilt would have meant a default registration on the Child Protection Offender’s Register.

The Offence of Driving whilst using a Mobile Phone, Successfully Defended

ST was charged for ‘Driving whilst using a mobile phone’, contrary to section 300 of the Road Rules 2014. ST pleaded not guilty to the offence and retained Chris Cole to represent him at his Hearing.

At his Hearing, the police tendered their materials including a photo taken by a mobile phone detection camera. Chris called ST to give evidence as to the identification of the item he was shown holding in the photographic evidence. Chris made submissions that the Magistrate could not find ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that what ST was holding was in fact a mobile phone. Ultimately, the Magistrate agreed and found ST ‘not guilty’ of the offence and the matter was dismissed.  

Enter Inclosed Land Proceedings Dropped

SM was charged with ‘Enter inclosed land’, contrary to section 4 of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. Chris Cole represented SM and successfully negotiated with the prosecution that the matter be withdrawn. The matter did not proceed to Hearing and it was ultimately dismissed.

SM felt a huge relief after her matter was dismissed.

CRO Without Conviction for Driving whilst drugs present in oral fluid

BD was charged with an offence of ‘Drive whilst illicit substance present in oral fluid’, contrary to section 111 Road Transport Act 2013. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 penalty units (or $2,200.00) and an automatic license disqualification for 6 months.

BD pleaded guilty to the charge and his matter proceeded to Sentence. Chris Cole acted for BD at his Sentence Proceedings. Chris tendered subjective materials on BD’s behalf and made oral submissions, inviting the Magistrate to exercise their discretion in the matter. The Sentencing Magistrate accepted the submissions and sentenced BD to a Conditional Release Order for a period of 10 months, without conviction.

Appeal Allowed, Indicative Sentence Reduced and Backdated, Finding Made of ‘Special Circumstances’

BS was charged with ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm domestic violence related (AOABH)’, contrary to s 59 Crimes Act 1900 and Sentenced to 1 year and 16 days in prison, with a non-parole period of 9 months and 12 days. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment. BS has a significant history of similar charges.

Chris Cole represented BS in relation to a Severity Appeal against his original sentence. Submissions were made to the Presiding Judge by both the Prosecutor and Defence. At the time of Appeal BS had already served just over 3 months in custody.  

Ultimately, His Honour allowed the appeal, backdated the sentence further, reduced the indicative sentence and made a finding of ‘special circumstances’. Accordingly, BS was re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, backdated and comprising of a non-parole period of 7 months.

This is an outstanding result for BS who is now due to be released on parole in August.

Numerous ‘Graffiti’ Related, ‘Good Suspected Stolen’, ‘Affray’ and ‘Hinder’ Charges Result in CCO and Fines.

RR had a number of ongoing matters before the Local Court including 23 charges relating to ‘Destroy / damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc’, contrary to s 68j(1)(B) Passenger Transport (general) Regulation 2017 and ‘Goods suspected stolen in / on premises (not m/v)’, contrary to s 527c(1)(C) Crimes Act 1900. He also faced charges of ‘Affray’, contrary to s 93C(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Fail to notify Authority of change in residential address within 14 days’, contrary to s 122(1)(b) Road Transport (driver Licensing) Regulation 2017. A further charge of ‘Hinder discovery evidence re: serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 315(1)(B) Crimes Act 1900, was brought against RR. Chris Cole acted for RR across these matters.

In regards to the ‘Destroy / damage property’, relating to graffiti offences, ‘Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc.’ and ‘Goods suspected stolen’ charges, Chris entered discussions with the Prosecution with the intent to negotiate a sensible plea deal. After discussions with the Prosecution were had, the Prosecution agreed to withdraw 11 of the sequences, in exchange for pleas of guilty to the offences where RR’s tag was identifiable and the ‘Goods suspected stolen’ charge. They also agreed to place the ‘Go onto … running lines etc’ charges on a Form 1.

A breach by RR of his Community Corrections Orders (CCO) was recorded whilst his matters were still before the Court.  

RR’s matters proceeded to Sentence. Chris Cole tendered various materials on RR’s behalf and made oral submissions. His Honour then Sentenced RR on each of the remaining charges. To the breach of CCO no action was taken. To the ‘Affray’ charge a CCO was imposed for the duration of 12 months and an $880.00 fine handed down. The Destroy / damage property’ offences resulted in a CCO for 12 months. RR also received a CCO for 12 months and fine of $880.00 on the ‘Hinder discovery evidence’ charge. In addition, His Honour made a Compensation Order of $5,816.00 payable to Sydney Trains.

This is a fantastic result for RR who was able to avoid any term of imprisonment or more restrictive community based orders.

Successful Plea Negotiations – CRO on Sentence

TR was charged with ‘Break & Enter dwelling-house etc commit serious indictable offence (not stealing / damaging property)’, contrary to s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Cause unauthorised computer function with intent to commit serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 308C(1) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage or cause disadvantage by deception’, contrary to s 192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 and two counts of ‘Enter building / land with intent commit indictable offence’, contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900. Each of these offences carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment. These matters have been before the Court since 2018. 

Chris Cole represented TR throughout proceedings. Chris entered negotiations with Police Prosecutors for a plea of ‘guilty’ to be entered to one count of ‘Enter building / land with intent to commit indictable offence’ in exchange for the ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc’ charge to be placed on a Form 1 and remaining charges to be withdrawn. This offer was accepted by Police and the matter proceeded to Sentence.

Chris made oral submissions on TR’s behalf and tendered written materials. He made submissions that His Honour ought to place TR on a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without recording a conviction. His Honour was concerned that the community would expect a conviction to be recorded and was ‘in two minds’ about whether he should. Ultimately, His Honour Sentenced TR to a CRO (with conviction) for a period of 9 months.

This is a wonderful result and enormous relief for TR, noting the seriousness of initial charges and length of time the matter has been before the Court.

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.

Sentenced to CCO Despite Repeated Offending, Breach of CCO and Multiple Contravene AVO’s

YI has a complex history involving Domestic Violence (DV) related offences. She suffers from long-term mental health and drug addiction issues. James Castillo represented YI in relation to charges of ‘Common assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Contravene AVO’, contrary to s 14(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2001. YI was serving 2 Community Corrections Order’s (CCO’s) and an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) at the time of offending.

James tendered a psychological report and made oral submissions on YI’s behalf. Her Honour then proceeded to Sentence YI on both charges. Ultimately, Her Honour imposed a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 18 months on the condition that YI continue with rehabilitation and psychiatric treatment.

This is an outstanding result. Particularly given YI has a substantial history of DV and contravention of AVO offences and was serving 2 CCO’s and an ICO when charged with the offences. 

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.

Sentenced to CRO Without Conviction for Traffic-Related Offence

SV was charged with the offence of ‘Not stopping on stop line’, contrary to s 67(1) Road Rules 2014. James Castillo represented SV in his matter. SV has an extensive driving record.

James entered a plea of guilty to the offence on SV’s behalf and made oral submissions as to why Her Honour should not record a conviction for the offence. Her Honour was satisfied that a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction was warranted in SV’s circumstances, accepting that a conviction for the offence would cause extra-curial punishment outweighing the intended penalty of the offence.

Ultimately, Her Honour placed SV on a CRO without conviction for the duration of 18 months and ordered SV to complete a Traffic Offender Intervention Program (TOIP) within 3 months.

This is a pleasing result.

Drive with Low Range PCA – CRO without Conviction

Christopher Cole represented SL on Sentence for the offence of ‘Drive with low range PCA’, contrary to s 110(3)(a) Road Transport Act 2013.

Material was tendered on SL’s behalf and Chris made oral submissions. Ultimately, Her Honour sentenced SL to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction for a period of 6 months.

This is a pleasing result, particularly given SL relies heavily on his driver’s licence for work. Further, SL’s contract could be terminated if convicted of a criminal offence and he currently resides in Australia on an employment Visa.

Matter Dismissed Under Section 10

Christopher Cole represented JK in his ‘Driving whilst using mobile phone’ matter in the Local Court of NSW. JK had already lost a number of demerit points and relies heavily on his license as a healthcare worker.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the offence. Chris Cole tendered an Affidavit sworn by JK and made oral submissions on his behalf. His Honour had regard to the material presented and ultimately dismissed the matter pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

This is an excellent result for JK, as he is able to continue providing rural healthcare with the use of his driver’s license.