Assault and ADVO; Case Dismissed

WX was charged with common assault, which he pled not guilty to. An ADVO was also put in place against WX. The matter then proceeded for Hearing at the Burwood Local Court. The alleged victim did not attend court on the specified date to be questioned. The Police sought to adjourn the proceedings, however Chris opposed that application. His Honour agreed with Chris and the Police then withdrew both the criminal charge and the application for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order.

This is a very pleading result for WX

Multiple Assault charges; Mental Health Application Successful: Matter Dismissed

LV was charged with a number of offences including common assault domestic violence related, contravene domestic violence order and stalk / intimidate with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm.

LV was struggling significantly with mental health issues. Chris Cole  made a s14 Application on behalf of LV at the Hearing and made powerful submissions as well as tendered supportive psychiatrist reports. The Application was successful, and his Honour determined that the charges of contravene AVO and stalk / intimidate be dismissed on the condition that LV adhere to a Mental Health Treatment Plan.

In regard to the common assault charge, his Honour determined it was not appropriate to deal with under the mental health diversion. Chris made submissions on Sentence and his Honour ultimately placed LV on a community corrections order for 2 years without a conviction.

Chris lodged a conviction appeal on behalf of LV on the grounds that LV should be diverted to the mental health regime. At the Appeal Hearing Chris tendered supporting material and made oral submissions in support of the matter being dealt with under the mental health regime. His Honour agreed and the charge of assault was dismissed on the condition that LV adheres to a Mental Health Treatment Plan.

This was a fantastic outcome for LV, as she is able to keep a clean record, as well as receive assistance for her mental health whilst in the community.

Driving under the influence of illicit drugs; Charge Dismissed

GR was charged with ‘Drive motor vehicle with illicit drug present in oral fluid’ contrary to section 111 (1) Road Transport Act. GR was already on a Community Correction Order due to prior criminal history relating to drugs and other offences. Chris Cole acted for GR in this matter.

GR is prescribed medical cannabis for chronic pain. GR also relies heavily on the ability to use a motor vehicle as he is a part-time Uber driver to financially support his parents.

Before the Hearing GR completed the Traffic Offender Program to assist his matter.

The Prosecution tendered written materials, Chris then tendered an Affidavit sworn by GR, Medical reports and Psychologist reports and made the submissions that GR ought not be convicted.

Ultimately, her Honour dismissed the charge pursuant to s10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act with no penalty. This is a fantastic outcome for GR, as he can continue to drive Uber to support his parents.

CRO Without Conviction; Lengthy History; Drive Motor Vehicle whilst Suspended

JB was charged with ‘Drive motor vehicle whilst suspended’ contrary to section 54 of the Road Transport Act 2013. This offence carries 30 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months or both. Chris Cole acted for JB in the matter. JB relies on his licence as he cares for someone with a serious health condition.

JB had a lengthy record of driving and traffic offences such drink driving, driving whilst disqualified and other general traffic infringements.

JB completed the Traffic Offenders Rehabilitation Program prior to Sentence.

A plea of guilty was entered to the offence and the matter was listed for Sentence at the Local Court. Chris tendered affidavit’s and medical material relating to the person JB assists.

Chris was able to convince Her Honour to place JB on a Conditional Release Order without a Conviction for a period of 12 months.

This is a pleasing outcome for JB taking into account his lengthy record of driving and traffic offences.

Found Not Guilty; Multiple Assault Charges

LR was charged with ‘Recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm’, ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ and ‘Common assault’. These are serious charges that would result in lengthy terms of imprisonment. LR was represented by Chris Cole in Local Court.

At his hearing the prosecution relied on his interview with police, as well as the interaction between him and the officers on the morning of the offence. Chris called M to give evidence to establish a good character and further oral submissions. The prosecution eventually conceded that LR was a person of good character.

Ultimately, the Magistrate determined that the prosecution could not establish an essential element to the offence and found LR not guilty. The magistrate also dismissed the Police’s application for a ADVO.

LR was very pleased with the outcome of this matter.

Matter Dismissed; Mental Health Application; Destroy / Damage Property

AM was charged with ‘Intentionally or recklessly destroy / damage property domestic violence related’ contrary to s195 (1) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum Sentence for this offence is imprisonment for 5 years if dealt with in the Local Court.

AM was suffering from several mental illnesses prior and during the period of the offence. Chis Cole represented AM, lodging a Section 14 Application in the Local Court. A charge may be dismissed under Section 14 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provision Act 2020 if the person suffers from a mental health or cognitive impairment. In support of the application Chris tendered a Psychiatric report and Mental Health Treatment Plan on AM’s behalf. He then made oral submissions that it would be more appropriate to divert AM’s matter to be dealt with under the health system.

After careful consideration the Magistrate allowed AM’s matter to be diverted away from the criminal justice system under the orders that AM comply with the treatment plan proposed by his psychiatrist for a period of 12 months.

This is a great outcome for AM, as he is able to access treatment in the community and has avoided a criminal record.

Charge Dismissed Under Section 10; Fail to Comply with Notice Displaying Mass Requirements

DM is employed as a truck driver. He was charged with the offence of ‘Fail to comply with notice displaying mass requirements’, contrary to s 148(6) Road Transport (General) Regulation 2013, to which he pleaded guilty. If convicted, DM could lose 11 demerit points, and face a fine of up to $3,300.00.

Chris Cole acted for DM, appearing at the Downing Centre Local Court where the matter was listed for Mention/Sentence. Chris tendered subjective materials and made oral submissions on DM’s behalf.

Ultimately, Her Honour agreed with the submission that DM ought not be convicted of the offence. Her Honour made an order dismissing the charge pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999.

This is a great result, and an enormous relief for DM.  

20BQ - Matter Dismissed; Mental Health Application; Use Carriage Service to Menace/Harass/Offend

BT was charged with ‘Use carriage service to menace/harass/offend’, contrary to s 474.17(1) Criminal Code Act 1995. The maximum Sentence for this offence is a term of 12 months imprisonment, if dealt with in the Local Court. 

BT has difficulty understanding social cues and norms, also suffering from a number of mental illnesses. Chris Cole represented BT, lodging a Section 20BQ Application in the Local Court. A charge may be dismissed under Section 20BQ of the Crimes Act 1941 (Cth) if a person is found to be suffering a mental illness or intellectual disability. In support of the application Chris tendered a psychological report and Mental Health Treatment Plan on BT’s behalf. He then made oral submissions that it would be more appropriate to divert BT’s matter to be dealt with under the health system.

After careful consideration the Magistrate allowed BT’s matter to be diverted away from the criminal justice system under the orders that BT comply with the treatment plan proposed by his psychiatrist for a period of 12 months, and that his GP would supervise the treatment plan for the relevant period.

This is a fantastic result for BT, as he is able to access treatment in the community and has avoided any criminal record. 

Charged with Six Firearms Offences Whilst Serving an ICO; Minimal Aggregate Sentence Imposed

GC was charged with six firearms-related offences, namely ‘Possess unregistered firearm pistol’, contrary to s 36(1) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Not keep firearm safely not prohibited firearm/pistol’, contrary to s 39(1)(A) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Possess ammunition w/o holding licence/permit/authority’, contrary to s 65(3) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Acquire etc pistol subject to firearms prohibition order’, contrary to s 74(1) Firearms Act 1996, ‘Acquire etc ammunition subject to firearms prohibition order’, contrary to s 74(3) Firearms Act 1996 and ‘Firearm etc found at premises subject to prohibition order’, contrary to s 74(6) Firearms Act 1996. GC was serving an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) for unrelated offences at the time of his arrest. He has a substantial criminal history including previous firearms charges.

Chris Cole entered negotiations with the Prosecution proposing a number of offences be withdrawn or placed on a Form 1, in exchange for a plea of guilty to the remaining offences. Ultimately, the Crown agreed to commit the matter for Sentence on just two offences, namely ‘Possess pistol subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’ and ‘Possess ammunition subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’. The sequence of ‘Not keep firearm safely’ was placed on a Form 1 and the remaining charges were withdrawn. GC was eligible for a 25% discount on Sentence for his early appropriate guilty plea (EAGP). 

Chris Cole briefed Counsel Mark Davies to appear at District Court Sentence. GC lives with severe cardiac illness and suffered a stroke not long before his arrest. A sentence bundle was prepared comprising of medical reports and documents, an affidavit, character references and other written materials in support of GC’s extenuating circumstances and mitigating factors.      

James Castillo appeared with Mark Davies of Counsel at District Court Sentence. The sentence bundle was tendered. Further tendered was an excerpt from the Bugmy Bar Book outlining the COVID-19 risks and impacts on prisoners. Counsel also prepared written submissions and made further oral submissions on GC’s behalf. GC was called to give evidence.

GC was then sentenced on the offences of ‘Possess pistol subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’, ‘Possess ammunition subject to Firearms Prohibition Order’ and ‘Not keep firearm safely’ (related offence). Ultimately, Her Honour found mitigating circumstances in GC’s favour and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, backdated to include time already spent in custody.

This is an outstanding outcome for GC.

Sequence Placed on Form 1, No Conviction Recorded – Possess Prohibited Drug

AA was charged with one count of ‘Possess prohibited drug (Testosterone)’ and one count ‘Possess Prohibited drug (Methandienone)’, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Chris Cole acted for AA in his matter.

A plea of guilty was entered to both sequences in the Local Court and the matter was adjourned for Sentence. Chris indicated to the Court that Representations would be sent to the Local Area Command concerning the Facts and possibly placing one of the sequences on a Form 1.

Chris successfully negotiated to have the second sequence placed on a Form 1. The matter proceeded to Sentence.

The Prosecution tendered written materials. Chris then tendered an Affidavit sworn by AA, character references and a drug screen result.    

Ultimately, Her Honour Sentenced AA to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction for a period of 12 months. The only condition of that order is that AA is to be of good behaviour for the period of that order.

AA is required to have a clear criminal record for his employment. This is a great result for AA.

Aggregate Sentence on Lengthy List of Indictable Charges – Attempt Murder; Break & Enter

PB was charged with offences relating to series of break and enter incidents. Namely, 2 counts of ‘Aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Attempt to murder’, contrary to s 18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence’ (inflict grievous bodily harm), contrary to s 112(3) Crimes Act 1900, 4 counts of ‘Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100000’, contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900, 3 counts of ‘Break and Enter dwelling-house or building commit serious indictable offence’ (destroy etc property), contrary to s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Aggravated enter dwelling with intent’ (knowing people there), contrary to s 111(2) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Enter dwelling with intent’, contrary to s 111(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Larceny’, contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900. These are very serious charges resulting in lengthy terms of imprisonment if sentenced at the top end. PB has a substantial criminal history and had previously spent a number of years in custody for similar offences.

Chris Cole and James Castillo acted for PB in these matters, instructing David Carroll as Counsel.  

Chris Cole entered negotiations with the Prosecution to amend the Agreed Facts. A number of the charges were Certified for District Court and remaining sequences were withdrawn.

Following further negotiations, the matter proceeded to Committal. Pleas of guilty were entered on PB’s behalf to ‘Specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, namely larceny in circumstances of special aggravation, namely, did intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm’, a rolled up sequence (inclusive of 3 sequences), ‘Deal with property proceeds of crime less than $1,000,000.00’, and ‘Break and enter dwelling house commit serious indictable offence’. Further sequences ‘Enter dwelling house with intent to commit larceny’ and ‘Larceny’ were placed on a Form 1. The matter then proceeded to Sentence.

James Castillo appeared with David Carroll for PB’s Sentence at the District Court. The Crown Sentence bundle was tendered, and the Crown made Sentence submissions regarding PB’s risk of re-offending, future dangerousness and the protection of the community. David Carroll then made submissions on PB’s behalf. Mr Carroll’s submissions addressed the timing of plea and utilitarian discount on sentence, the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances and mitigating features and special circumstances, referring to materials in the Defence Sentence bundle.   

His Honour considered both Crown and Defence submissions then proceeded to Judgment. Ultimately, His Honour sentenced PB to an aggregate sentence of 10 years 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years.

This is a very pleasing result for PB considering the objective seriousness of these offences and his prior criminal history.

CRO Without Conviction, Avoids Licence Suspension; Breach of Good Behaviour Licence

JP was charged with Drive across dividing lines to do a U-turn’, contrary to Road Rules 2014. When this incident occurred, JP was already on a good behaviour licence due to previous traffic offences. Chris Cole acted for JP in this matter.

 JP relies heavily on his licence as a Real Estate Agent. Having his licence suspended would significantly impact JP’s ability to work.

JP completed the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP) prior to Sentence.

A plea of guilty was entered to the offence and the matter was listed for Sentence in the Local Court. Chris Tendered materials on JP’s behalf and made oral submissions that he ought not be convicted of the offence. Ultimately, the Presiding Magistrate agreed with the submissions and placed JP on a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction, for a period of 12 months. JP is to be of good behaviour and not commit any further traffic offences during that period.   

This is a very pleasing outcome for JP.

No Conviction Recorded for Breach of Good Behaviour Licence

AT was charged with ‘Not stop at line at red light’, contrary to s 56(1)(a) Road Rules 2014. AT was on a good behaviour licence at the time of the offence. He elected to have the penalty decided in Court.  Chris Cole represented AT in his matter.

AT completed the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP) prior to Sentence. He pleaded guilty to the offence and Chris tendered materials to the Court. The Magistrate noted AT’s plea of guilty and deemed it not expedient to record a conviction or record any punishment, pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.  This means AT retains his licence and there is no breach of his good behaviour licence.

This is a great outcome for AT.

Plea Traversal Granted, Found Not Guilty; Supply Prohibited Drug

DJ was charged with ‘Supply prohibited drug >indictable & <commercial quantity’, namely Heroin, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment if prosecuted in the Local Court and 15 years imprisonment if prosecuted in the District Court. DJ has complex chronic health conditions that often render him in excruciating pain. He was receiving inpatient hospital treatment at the time of the offence.

DJ initially pleaded guilty to the offence. He did not fully understand the process or the nature of the charge he was pleading to. DJ sought new representation and made contact with O’Brien & Hudson Solicitors. Chris Cole acted in his matter moving forward.

Chris appeared at the Local Court where he lodged a Section 4 Application / Plea Traversal on DJ’s behalf. His Honour granted that application and a plea of not guilty was entered.

The matter proceeded to Hearing. Chris tendered written materials and made oral submissions on DJ’s behalf. DJ gave evidence and closing submissions were made by the Prosecution. The Magistrate then proceeded to Judgment, ultimately finding DJ not guilty of the offence.

This is an outstanding result for DJ.

Charged with 9 Counts ‘Break, Enter and Steal’ and 1 Count ‘Aggravated Break, Enter and Steal’, Minimal Aggregate Sentence Imposed

DK was charged with 9 counts of ‘Break, Enter and Steal’, contrary to s 112(A) Crimes Act 1900 and one count of ‘Aggravated Break, Enter and Steal’, contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900. The offences took place between 2013 – 2017.

An offence contrary to s 112(A) Crimes Act 1900 carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. An offence contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900 carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 5 years.  

Chris briefed Counsel Daniel Pace to appear in DK’s sentence proceedings. Chris Cole and Daniel Pace appeared with DK at the District Court for part-heard Sentence of all 10 offences. Subjective materials and written submissions were tendered on his behalf. After considering all evidence and submissions, His Honour ultimately imposed an aggregate sentence of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years, backdated to include time already spent in custody.

This is a great result for DK, particularly considering maximum terms of imprisonment for these offences. 

Significant Reduction in Sentence on District Court Severity Appeal; Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm, Police Pursuit

JM was initially charged with a number of serious driving-related offences, namely, ‘Police pursuit- not stop- drive dangerously’, contrary to section 51B(1) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Exceed speed over 20km/h’, contrary to section 20 Road Rules 2014, ‘Dangerously driving occasioning grievous bodily harm’, contrary to section 52A(3)(c) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm’, contrary to section 117(1)(b) Road Transport Act 2013, ‘Cause bodily harm by misconduct’, contrary to section 53 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Owner not disclose identity of driver or passenger’, contrary to section 17(1) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 and ‘Not give particulars to police’, contrary to section 287(1) Road Rules 2014.

Pleas of guilty were entered to the charges of ‘Police pursuit- not stop- drive dangerously’, ‘Excess speed’, ‘Cause bodily harm, in charge of motor vehicle‘, and ‘Aggravated dangerous driving’. The remaining charges were withdrawn. JM was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years.

Chris Cole lodged a Severity Appeal in the District Court on JM’s behalf. An updated Sentence Assessment Report was ordered and the matter was adjourned for further Hearing and determination. The Severity Appeal was then listed for Judgment, on which occasion the Judge allowed the appeal, re-sentencing JM to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 8 months.

This is a significant reduction in sentence and a very pleasing result for JM.    

Sentence of Imprisonment to be Served by Way of ICO; Deal with Proceeds of Crime

TL was charged with two counts of ‘Deal with property the Proceeds of Crime’, contrary to s 193C(1) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum sentence for this offence is a term of imprisonment of 5 years. Following his arrest Chris Cole made a successful Application for Grant of Bail. TL was immediately released from custody on bail. TL instructed Chris to enter pleas of guilty to both counts of ‘Deal with property the Proceeds of Crime’.

Chris briefed Counsel James Trevallion to act in TL’s sentence proceedings. A comprehensive sentence bundle of subjective materials was prepared and tendered, supplemented by oral submissions. The Magistrate considered submissions and ultimately sentenced TL to a term of 14 months imprisonment on the first count and 10 months imprisonment on the second count. His Honour ordered that assessment take place as to TL’s suitability to serve that sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) with a Home Detention component. The matter was adjourned.

The matter then proceeded for part-heard Sentence where the His Honour found TL suitable to serve his sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order, with a Home Detention component. Ultimately, His Honour imposed both offences to be served concurrently, by way of ICO, Home Detention and a total of 100 hours community service.

This is a very pleasing result for TL.  

Successful Negotiations with Prosecution on Drug-Related Charges – CRO on Sentence

DS was charged with 11 drug-related and proceeds of crime offences, namely, ‘Deal with Proceeds of Crime < $1,000,000.00’, contrary to s 193(C) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Supply prohibited drug (Cannabis Leaf)’, contrary to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985,  3 counts of ‘Possess/attempt to possess prescribed restricted - (Tramadol, Methylphenidate, Diazepam)’, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and 6 Counts of ‘Possess prohibited drug (Cannabis Leaf, Alprazolam, Oxycodone, Tramadol, Methylamphetamine)’, contrary to s 16(1) Poisons and Therapeutics Goods Act 1966.

Chris Cole submitted representations to the Local Area Commander. He noted an early plea of guilty to ‘Possess prohibited drug (Cannabis Leaf)’ and sought to withdraw the remaining charges. He further noted no evidence of drug supply, receipts corresponding to the small amount of cash found on the premises and prescriptions in DS’ name for Tramadol and Oxycodone. The remaining restricted medications were prescribed to acquaintances of DS, all having recently stayed in her home.

Following negotiations, the Prosecution ultimately agreed to Chris Cole’s offer, withdrawing a number of charges in exchange for a plea of guilty to ‘Possess prohibited drug (Cannabis)’, placing one count of each ‘Possess prescribed restricted substance’ and ‘Possess prohibited drug’ on a Form 1.  

The matter proceeded to Sentence.

Chris tendered written material and made oral submissions on DS’ behalf. Ultimately, His Honour sentenced DS to a Conditional Release Order (with conviction) for period of 12 months, the only condition imposed was to be of good behaviour for the duration of that order.

This is a great result for DS, particularly noting the objective seriousness of the initial charges.

Trial Withdrawn, Sentenced at Local Court Instead

JT was charged with a count of ‘Steal from person and inflict actual bodily harm’, contrary to section 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years term of imprisonment. He was further charged with a back-up offence of ‘Receiving stolen property where stealing a serious indictable offence’, contrary to section 188(1) Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years term of imprisonment.

JT pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the single count on Indictment and his matter was listed for Trial at the Sydney District Court. Months prior to his Trial, the steal from person offence was formally withdrawn by the Crown and his matter was remitted back to the Central Local Court to deal with the back-up offence.

James Castillo acted for JT and entered a guilty plea to the back-up offence. James tendered a Sentence Assessment Report prepared for JT on his previous unrelated matter and made oral submissions on his behalf. Ultimately, the Sentencing Magistrate sentenced JT to a fixed term of 5 months imprisonment. JT’s sentence was backdated and from the Sentence date, he had only a month left to serve in custody before he was released.

This is particularly a great result for JT, noting his lengthy criminal history of the similar natured offences.

Breach of CCO, Similar CCO Imposed

KP pleaded guilty to the charge of ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm’, contrary to section 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. She also has a matter on a Form 1 which is a charge of ‘Larceny’, contrary to section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years.

Ultimately, His Honour imposed a Community Correction Order (CCO) for a period of 2 years with additional conditions namely, that KP participate in a treatment program at the direction of Community Corrections for alcohol and drug problems for the term of the order and that she remains at Healing House residential rehabilitation until the completion of the program.

KP breached her CCO when she was fined and convicted for possessing a prohibited drug. Her matter was called up by the same Judge who has sentenced her to CCO. James Castillo represented KP in her breach matter. His Honour adjourned the matter on numerous occasions to allow KP to get a bed placement at a residential rehabilitation, noting that KP’s options were limited, either to enter a residential rehabilitation program, or to be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment. James referred and assisted KP to get an acceptance to a residential rehabilitation program to address her drug and mental health issues.

Upon acceptance to a residential rehabilitation, His Honour re-sentenced KP for the breach by revoking the CCO in place, and imposing a new CCO for 12 months with the additional conditions namely, that KP enter a detoxification program and upon completion, that she enters and remains at a residential rehabilitation until the completion of the program.