My client was originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 8 domestic violence related charges including choking and repeated breaches of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (AVO) . He lodged an appeal to the Parramatta District Court and engaged me as his legal counsel. During the appeal, evidence was adduced concerning the appellant’s remorse, contrition and rehabilitative efforts since being found guilty of the charges.

Despite having a period of time remaining on his sentence, His Honour was satisfied that the purposes of sentencing could be achieved by releasing my client on an Intensive Correction Order (ICO), which is a sentence of imprisonment that is physically served in the community (i.e. not in jail). This meant that my client was immediately released from jail on the same day that the appeal was held.

This was a great result for my client whom despite his multiple breaches of court orders and original sentence of imprisonment was able to be released.

My client was charged with a domestic violence related assault arising out of a dispute. After reviewing the matter and providing advice, my client decided to plead guilty.

Upon sentence, submissions were made concerning the mitigating factors in the incident and the efforts that my client had made post the offending. Whilst domestic violence offences are treated seriously by the courts as reflected in sections 4A and 4B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), in this particular matter, Her Honour was satisfied that the purposes of sentencing would not be achieved by convicting my client. As such, Her Honour placed my client on a conditional release order without conviction. This was a great result for my client who was facing an offence with a maximum penalty of years in jail.

My client was charged with two counts of intentionally choke, and a stalk/intimidate charge arising out of a domestic violence allegation. Following advice, my client plead not guilty. A finding of guilt for an intentionally choke charge (even for a first time offender) can result in a prison sentence.

A restrictive provisional apprehended domestic violence order (AVO) was in place which was successfully varied after an interim hearing.

Prior to a full hearing relating to the substantive allegation, negotiations were had with police in an effort to persuade police to withdraw the charges. Ultimately these negotiations were successful and the charges as well as the application for an apprehended domestic violence order (AVO) were withdrawn. This left my client in the same position as before he was charged. This was a great result for my client who was initially looking at the possibility of a jail sentence upon a finding of guilt of one of the allegations of intentionally choke.

Following police being called to an incident, my client was unlawfully arrested, had Oleoresin Capsicum (OC Spray) used against him, was handcuffed, and was punched by police officers while being detained. My client was arrested and placed into custody before being granted bail by a Local Court Magistrate.

My client was criminally charged and after a defended hearing, had the charges dismissed. My client then pursued civil action against the State of New South Wales (who were vicariously liable for the police officers).

After a hearing was listed in the District Court, settlement negotiations ensued with lawyers for the State of New South Wales. An agreed confidential agreement was reached ending the proceedings. Whilst the terms of the settlement are confidential, this was a great result for my client who was originally criminally charged and ended up receiving and accepting a settlement offer from the State of New South Wales.

My client was charged with 4 counts of assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty and 1 count of resisting a police officer in the execution of their duty. After an assessment of the case, my client followed advice and plead not guilty to all charges.

At the contested hearing, the police presented evidence via police body worn video camera showing my client being detained by police. Police officers that detained my client were cross examined as to the conversations that they had with my client and their intentions in detaining my client.

After the evidence had finalised, legal argument was made regarding whether the officers were actually acting in the execution of their duty during their interactions with my client. Three predominant arguments were raised with the court:

1. That my client was arrested without any intention to criminally charge him citing the legislation of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (‘LEPRA‘) and the case of New South Wales v Robinson [2019] HCA 46 (‘Robinson‘).
2. That my client was arrested for the purposes of “having a chat”, which is unlawful referring to the case of Robinson.
3. That my client was not informed as to the reason for his arrest when it was reasonably practicable to do so, citing LEPRA and R v Murray [2020] NSWDC 729.

Generally as well, as the legislation relates to the personal liberty of persons, it requires an interpretation that is strict, citing the case of Smith v Corrective Services Commission (N.S.W.) [1980] HCA 49.

After considering the evidence carefully, Her Honour accepted that the police had a reasonable opportunity to inform my client as to the reason for his arrest and the police had failed to do so. By failing to do so, the police arrest was unlawful, the police officers were not acting in the execution of their duty and as such, all charges were dismissed.

This was a great result for my client who was able to walk out of court with a not guilty verdict for all charges after originally being charged with 5 criminal charges against police.

My client was charged with common assault arising out of a domestic incident. Following advice, my client instructed me to engage in negotiations with prosecutor’s. Following negotiations, an amended FACTS sheet was agreed upon. My client plead guilty to the agreed amended FACTS which was vastly different from the original version of the FACTS sheet as drafted/alleged by police.

During sentencing, submissions were made concerning my client’s actions after the offending conduct, including actions that my client had taken to ensure that he does not offend again. Ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that it would not be appropriate to set an example of my client to the community and convict my client. Her Honour placed my client on a good behaviour bond known as a “conditional release order” without conviction. This was a great result which allows my client to maintain his conviction free record and continue his rehabilitative efforts.

My client was charged with common assault arising out of a domestic incident. Following advice, my client plead not guilty and provided instructions to plead self-defence. After a review of the evidence, a plea of not guilty was maintained with the court.

During the defended hearing, witnesses who testified that my client was the aggressor were cross-examined and were able to be discredited.

At the close of the evidence, Her Honour was satisfied that my client had acted in self-defence and was not satisfied that the prosecution had overcome the burden of negativing that my client had acted in self-defence. Subsequently the charge and the related AVO was dismissed.

This was a great result for my client who maintains their good character noting that they were found not guilty of the charge.

My client was charged with common assault arising out of a domestic dispute in Maroubra.

Following advice, my client plead not guilty. The prosecution case involved video evidence of the allegation and two independent eyewitnesses to the assault. On the day of the defended hearing, negotiations occurred with the prosecution, at the conclusion of which, the prosecution agreed to withdraw the charge. This withdrawal of the charge was entered in court and my client’s charge was formerly dismissed.

This was a great result for my client who maintains his good character noting that this criminal charge was withdrawn and dismissed.

My client was charged with stalk/intimidate arising out of a domestic dispute. Following advice, my client did not participate in an interview with police and subsequently plead not guilty. After an analysis of police evidence, negotiations occurred with police concerning the charge. On the day of the defended court hearing, the police applied for an adjournment to allow them to gather further evidence. This adjournment application was opposed and subsequently Her Honour denied the prosecution adjournment application.

As a result of the refusal of the police adjournment application, no evidence was able to be presented on the day of the hearing to support the charge and the charge was subsequently dismissed.

This was a great result for my client who can maintain his freedom in the community with no criminal penalty provided for this allegation.

My client was convicted and sentenced to a Community Corrections Order arising from an incident where my client kicked a scooter rider off their scooter resulting in a dislocated shoulder.

Upon appeal, submissions were made to the learned Judge regarding the provocation caused by the victim and the steps that my client had taken post the offending behaviour. Despite the prosecution not concurring with a conviction not being recorded, the Judge ordered that my client be sentenced to a conditional release order without conviction pursuant to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

This was a great result for my client who can maintain his good character in the community without a criminal conviction.

My client had previously served a term of imprisonment for domestic violence related offences against a victim.

During a dispute relating to child custody arrangements, my client threatened the victim. This resulted in the victim contacting police and my client was charged with stalk/intimidate and using a carriage service to menace/harass/offend.

As my client had previously served a term of imprisonment for domestic violence offences against the same victim, my client was concerned about the prospect of going back to jail.

During sentencing, submissions were made to His Honour concerning the changes that my client had undertaken since the offence as well as the circumstances which led to my client offending.

Whilst jail was a possibility considering my client’s criminal history, His Honour was satisfied that jail would not be the appropriate sentence for these offences. This was a great result for my client who despite his criminal history, is able to maintain his liberty within the community.

My client originally received a conviction during Local Court sentencing arising from a domestic violence incident.

I represented my client upon appeal. Submissions were made to Her Honour in the appeal concerning the events and surrounding circumstances which contributed to the behaviour at the time of the offending as well as the actions my client had taken post the offending conduct. Despite the prosecution submitting that a criminal record/conviction was warranted in the circumstances, Her Honour was satisfied that my client should be afforded an outcome which did not include a conviction/criminal record.

This was a great result for my client who can continue with his life criminal record fee.

My client was charged with stalking/intimidation, assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty and common assault. My client was concerned about a a criminal penalty depriving him of his liberty and having long lasting effects on his employment prospects.

Following advice, my client plead not guilty. Through negotiations with the the prosecution, the prosecution agreed to withdraw the assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty and common assault charges if my client plead guilty to stalking/intimidation. My client subsequently plead guilty to stalking/intimidation with the other charges being withdrawn by the proseuction.

My client made an application to be diverted away from the criminal justice system pursuant to mental health grounds. After lengthy submissions, His Honour was satisfied that my client was an appropriate vehicle to divert from the criminal justice system and the public interest would be served by doing so. Subsequently His Honour ordered that my client’s charge be dismissed pursuant to mental health grounds.

This was a great result for my client who was able to leave court without a conviction and maintain his clean criminal record.

My client was charged with Using A Carriage Service to Menace/Harass/Offend. Following advice, my client plead not guilty.

During a defended hearing, due to inadequacies in the police evidence, the police sought an adjournment of the proceedings. This application was opposed and Her Honour heard arguments surrounding the interests of justice and why an adjournment application should be refused.

Ultimately Her Honour was of the view that the police adjournment application should be refused and ordered as such. As a result, the police were unable to present any evidence relating to the charge. Accordingly the charge and related apprehended domestic violence order (AVO) were dismissed.

This was a great result for my client who can put this charge behind them knowing that they were found not guilty, did not receive any criminal penalty and are not subject to any civil restraining orders.

My client was charged with assault occassioing actual bodily violence (domestic violence) and damaging property (domestic violence). In the Local Court, my client received a conviction.

After approaching me and following advice, my client embarked on a severity appeal in the District Court for the purposes of making a mental health diversion application.

During submissions to Her Honour, arguments surrounding why the public interest would be served if my client was diverted from the criminal justice system were ventilated. Her Honour was ultimately satisfied that my client would be a suitable vehicle for diversion and that to be dealt with at law would not be in the public interest. As such, Her Honour granted the application pursuant to section 14 Mental Health And Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

This was a great result for my client who was able to leave court without a conviction as a result of this criminal offending.

My client was charged with intimidation which he denied committing, despite the complainant being adamant that he had done so. The complainant provided evidence from her mobile phone surrounding the allegations. Following advice, my client plead not guilty.

During cross examination of the complainant, evidence was provided as to her actions after the alleged act of intimidation which appeared to demonstrate that she had not been intimidated by the complainant. The complainant had made other claims of impropriety against my client which was able to be rebutted through third party evidence.

Submissions were made to the learned Magistrate concerning doubts regarding the complainants assertions and why the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt could not be met on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsequently, the criminal charge and related apprehended domestic violence order (AVO) were dismissed.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising out of a domestic dispute. It came to light that my client had some underlying mental health issues and as such, he was referred for a comprehensive evaluation. It was found that he suffered from a mental health disorder which contributed to the offending. My client agreed to undergo treatment.

During sentencing, my client’s mental health ailments were highlighted to the Magistrate and a mental health diversion application was made. After hearing arguments and despite opposition from police, Her Honour accepted that my client suffered from the mental health ailment and that there was a causal connection to the offending behaviour. Her Honour also accepted that a comprehensive treatment plan was prescribed. Her Honour determined that it was ultimately in the public interest that my client be diverted from the criminal justice system under mental health legislation.

This was a great result for my client who can now commence his treatment plan and is able to continue his life without a conviction/criminal record.

My client was charged with reckless wounding and affray following an incident involving a violent altercation which resulted in my client stabbing the complainant.

Following advice, my client plead not guilty and defended the charges as alleged by police. At the defended hearing, the complainant was cross examined and their reliability was challenged as to their assertions.

During legal submissions, the unreliability of the complainant’s evidence was highlighted through its inconsistencies with other witnesses to the incident.

Legal argument was made concerning the law in NSW regarding self-defence and how the law recognises and allows people to defend themselves if a person believes that they need to defend themselves and that the self defence response is proportional.

Ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that my client acted in self-defence and subsequently dismissed the charges as alleged by police. A great result for my client as being found not guilty results in no criminal sanction, including no criminal record and no other criminal penalty.

My client was found guilty of assault occasioning harm, common assault and stalk/intimidate. My client was also charged with a further offence of breaching an apprehended domestic violence order (AVO) to which he pled guilty.

My client was concerned about the impacts of a criminal record (criminal conviction) upon his future prospects. Following advice, my client engaged a forensic psychologist to perform a psychological evaluation upon him. This evaluation was used in an application to divert my client away from the criminal justice system pursuant to section 14 of the Mental Health And Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

During the application, submissions were made to the learned Magistrate concerning the legal criteria around diverting my client away from the criminal justice system including the public interest in diverting my client, the connections between my client’s offending behaviour and his mental health ailments and why treatment for his mental health ailments would not only benefit my client, but the community.

Ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that my client should be diverted under mental health legislation and ordered as such.

This was a great result for my client who despite being guilty of four domestic violence offences, is able to continue his rehabilitative efforts with no criminal record.

My client was charged with a number of charges including common assault, stalk/intimidate, contravene AVO, and destroy/damage property. My client was concerned about the potential of a custodial sentence as well as the future repercussions of their actions on their future work prospects.

Following advice, my client plead guilty and underwent a psychological evaluation. The psychological evaluation identified a number of mental health issues relevant to the offending behaviour.

A mental health diversion application was made under section 14 of the Mental Health And Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

After extensive submissions, Her Honour was satisfied that the provisions of the Act were satisfied and the public interest would be served by diverting my client away from the criminal justice system.

This was a great result for my client who received no criminal record in relation to their offending.

My client was charged with a domestic violence related incident involving intimidation. My client had a previous criminal history including terms of imprisonment being ordered for violence related offences. Following advice, my client plead guilty. Upon sentencing, submissions were made concerning my client’s health, the utilitarian value in my client pleading guilty, and context surrounding the events leading up to the offending behaviour.

Despite my client’s criminal history, Her Honour was satisfied that a term of imprisonment would not achieve the aims of sentencing. My client was sentenced to a community based order known as a Community Corrections Order. A great result for my client as this sentencing result allows my client to maintain his liberty within the community.

My client was charged with an offence arising out of a domestic violence incident. Following advice my client plead not guilty. On the day of the hearing at the Downing Centre, the prosecution wanted to adduce photographs of injuries of the alleged victim. This evidence was objected to on the basis of the photos being hearsay and prejudicial towards my client. The prosecution requested that the victim give evidence to the court via telephone as the victim was currently not in Sydney. This was also objected to. After this objection, the prosecution considered its position with respect to the charges. After negotiation, the prosecution agreed to withdraw the criminal charges, meaning that the charges were dismissed.

This was a great result for my client who was facing the possibility of a criminal record/conviction and further criminal sanctions based on alleged conduct that he had occasioned to his partner. Now my client can continue on with his life knowing that he has no criminal record, thereby not affecting his career and travel aspirations.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, property damage and breaching an apprehended domestic violence order (AVO). Following advice, my client plead guilty. Upon sentencing, submissions were made to the Magistrate concerning how my client found himself in circumstances where he committed a criminal offence. The seriousness of the injuries occasioned to the victim and the seriousness of the breach of the AVO were also discussed during sentencing submissions.

The prosecutor for the police tried to inflate the seriousness of the property damage charge by linking it to a potential break and enter offence. As my client was not charged with a break and enter offence, I made submissions to the Magistrate concerning the legal principle contained in a case of R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, which generally states that a court cannot take into account as an aggravating factor a circumstance that would warrant conviction for a more serious offence. So in my client’s instance, the court could not consider the fact that he damaged property of the victim as he broke into a house as he was not charged with break and enter and only property damage.

Ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that jail was not a viable sentencing option for these offences. My client was sentenced to a conditional release order for 12 months which is the lowest form of good behaviour bond available in NSW sentencing law.

My client was charged with a domestic violence assault at Burwood Local Court after previously breaching an appended violence order on multiple occasions. My client was concerned about the prospect of going to jail. Initially my client plead not guilty to the charge but after negotiating with the prosecution, my client decided to plead guilty.

At the time of the offence, my client was subject to conditional liberty via a conditional release order for an earlier domestic violence offence. Upon sentencing, the Magistrate decided to take no action on the breach of the conditional release order and sentenced my client to a Community Corrections Order. This was a great result for my client who avoided jail, did not incur any supervision in the community, no community service and no monetary penalty. This now allows my client to get on with his life and put this offence behind him.

My client was charged with a violence offence arising out of a domestic incident. The assault caused injuries to the victim. The incident occurred in the home of the victim, which is an aggravating factor upon sentencing. Assisting my client, my client was able to obtain medical evidence and supporting character references to be presented at court.

During sentencing, some background information on my client was provided to the Magistrate including the circumstances that led to my client offending. Ultimately upon sentence, His Honour was satisfied that a conviction/criminal record was not warranted in my client’s matter and my client was released without conviction on a conditional release order (which is similar to a good behaviour bond). A great result for my client who can now continue with their life criminal record free!

My client was charged with a number of charges which were brought to police’s attention by a family member. My client was subsequently charged with drug and domestic violence related charges occasioned against a child. Following advice, my client plead not guilty and the matter was listed for a disputed hearing at Liverpool Local Court. At the hearing, negotiations were had with police where police agreed to withdraw some of the charges. As such, my client plead guilty to the remaining charges and was sentenced by the Local Court Magistrate. Upon sentencing, submissions were made to the court concerning my client’s personal circumstances, what led him to the offending behaviour and what an appropriate penalty would be in all the circumstances.

Ultimately His Honour was satisfied that jail would not achieve the aims of sentencing and as such sentenced my client with a fine and a community based bond. This was a great result for my client who can now continue with his life without the stress of criminal charges hanging over his head.

My client was charged with 2 counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and 1 count of stalk/intimidate coupled with an apprehended violence order which allegedly arose out of a domestic dispute. My client was concerned about the potential impact of these charges upon his employment. Following advice my client plead not guilty, a brief of evidence was served by police, my client maintained his plea of not guilty and the matter was listed for hearing at Parramatta Local Court.

After negotiating with police, police agreed not to pursue the charges and subsequently all the charges and the AVO were marked as dismissed. This was a great result for my client which means that he was found not guilty, no penalty was imposed and he was placed in the same position that he was in before he was charged.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm as a result of a domestic violence dispute. My client was very concerned about the impact a criminal conviction would have on his work. Following advice, my client plead guilty but disputed the police FACTS sheet.

At the disputed FACTS hearing, the factual scenario that my client proclaimed happened was accepted and my client was sentenced on this factual scenario rather than the factual scenario initially put forward by police. This resulted in the totality of the criminality of my client being reduced compared to the initial police allegation. As such, on sentencing after hearing submissions, Her Honour was satisfied that a conviction was not warranted in these circumstances. A conditional release order without conviction was made allowing my client to continue his career without a criminal conviction.

My client was charged with a domestic violence incident (namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm and property damage) whilst he was already on conditional liberty for a previous offence involving violence.

My client was concerned that as he had breached his previous court orders, he would be sentenced to jail.

My client plead guilty and during sentencing proceedings, submissions were made to the Learned Magistrate concerning my client’s contrition and remorse, his role within the community, his personal circumstances and why he should not be sentenced to a term of full time imprisonment. Ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that my client should remain in the community and he was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order.

A great result for my client who maintains his freedom and continues his rehabilitation.

After a night out, my client was charged with assaulting a taxi driver over a dispute about a fare. Subsequently my client was charged with common assault. Following advice, my client plead not guilty. One of the main disadvantages of pleading not guilty is that you lose a discount that you receive on sentence for pleading guilty. After a review of the brief of evidence, following advice, my client changed his plea to guilty.

During sentencing at Newtown Local Court, submissions were made to the learned Magistrate regarding the stress my client was experiencing at the time of the offence in relation to personal family circumstances, as well as other contributions to the community that my client did outside of this offence. Despite my client having a prior criminal history, ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that the purposes of sentencing could be achieved by issuing my client with a fine and no further penalty. This was a great result for my client who can now continue his life without any community service, supervision in the community and/or imprisonment.

My client was charged with reckless grievous bodily harm which is a serious charge carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment with 82.5% of accused people found guilty serving a jail sentence. My client was also charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault.

During a contested hearing at Burwood Local Court, large parts of the prosecution case were excluded due to not meeting proper policing practices and evidentiary standards. This included the account of the victim, and the interview that my client had with police.

As main pieces of evidence which formed part of the prosecution case were excluded as evidence, the police had very little other evidence to rely on to try and prove the charge against my client. As such, the charges were dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, an application was made for police to pay my client’s costs due to how the prosecution conducted the case at court. This application was successful, a great result for my client.

My client was charged with affray arising out of an inner city physical dispute at a bar. Affray is a relatively serious charge which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. After receiving a conviction/criminal record in the Local Court, my client followed advice and appealed to the District Court and sought to be diverted under a section 14 of the Mental Health And Cognitive Impairment Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) legislation.

During an extensive appeal in the District Court, various submissions were made concerning the causal connection between my client’s mental health ailments and the offending. Ultimately despite the prosecution opposing the diversionary application, His Honour was satisfied that my client was suitable for a mental health diversion and as such granted our application. This was a great result for my client who can now maintain his criminal free record and obtain the professional assistance with his mental health that he requires.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising out of a domestic incident. Following advice my client plead not guilty. During the contested hearing at Newtown Local Court, discussions were had with the prosecutors concerning the weaknesses in their case. After these discussions, the prosecutors decided to withdraw the charge and associated apprehended domestic violence order (AVO). A great result for my client who can now continue with his work and travel aspirations with a criminal free record.

My client was charged with multiple breaches of an apprehended domestic violence order (AVO) as well as a stalk/intimidate charge and common assault. The initial allegation consisted of a punch to the head and this was disputed by my client. Following advice, my client plead not guilty. I negotiated with police regarding the weaknesses in their case and the benefits to amending the factual scenario upon which my client would admit. Ultimately the police agreed and my client plead guilty to a push, which was a much less serious circumstance than a punch to the head.

Following advice, my client plead guilty and proceeded to sentencing. During sentencing, psychological information concerning my client was tendered to the the court and a causal link between my client’s psychological ailments and the offending was explained.

Ultimately His Honour was satisfied that despite the multiple breaches of the apprehended domestic violence order (AVO), the aims of sentencing would not be achieved by sending my client to jail. My client was allowed to walk free from the court with a community based order. This was a great result for my client who was facing the possibility of a jail sentence.

My client was charged with multiple counts of common assault and property damage arising out of a night out at a Meriton in the city. Due to COVID delays and a failure of the prosecution to serve evidence, the matter was adjourned multiple times. Eventually on the final day of the hearing, discussions were had with the prosecutor regarding the evidentiary basis (or lack thereof) for the adducing of certain evidence that the police wished to rely on and why it would offend the hearsay rule. After lengthy discussions with the prosecutor, the prosecutor was persuaded to withdraw the charges despite police trying to pursue these charges against my client over an extended period of time. This meant that a Magistrate would not be determining my client’s matter and no finding of guilt would be recorded against my client.

This was a great result for my client who can now continue with his career with no criminal record attached to his name preventing him from future employment opportunities.

My client was charged with two counts of Common Assault and an application for an apprehended domestic violence order (AVO). Following advice, my client plead not guilty and the matter was listed for hearing at Burwood Local Court. During the hearing, a significant portion of the evidence upon which police wanted to rely upon was objected to and ruled as inadmissible. This assisted my client by undermining the police case. During cross examination of the complainant, the complainant’s credibility was undermined due to inconsistencies in her version of events. My client’s case relied upon an argument of self defence pursuant to section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Ultimately, His Honour was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence before the court that both charges could be proven. This meant that my client was found not guilty and the charges and the AVO were dismissed. This was a great result for my client who can now move on with his future endeavours.

My client was charged with stalk/intimidate contrary to section 13(1) of the Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). This charge came out of the breakup of a long term relationship with my client’s former partner making a statement to police regarding my client’s conduct.

Following advice, my client plead guilty and made an application under section 14(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). I discussed the matter with prosecutors and made submissions in court. After submissions, His Honour decided to divert my client and not sentence him according to law. This was a great result for my client who avoided a criminal record. This allows my client to continue his career without needing to explain a criminal record to any future employers.

My client was charged with two counts of assault with one being upon a child. My client was a highly qualified individual possessing a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) amongst other qualifications. My client was concerned about how their actions in the assault would now have an impact upon their future career and travel endeavours. Following advice, my client underwent a psychological assessment and subsequently made an application to be diverted under mental health legislation. Despite this application being opposed by the prosecution, His Honour was persuaded that this was the appropriate action to take and as such granted the mental health diversion application.

This means that my client was ordered to undergo treatment with a forensic psychologist to address the criminogenic behaviour that contributed to the offending.

This was a great result for my client and the community. It means that my client did not receive a criminal record and the community benefits by the chances of my client re-offending being lowered by undergoing the psychological treatment.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm against a 14 year old victim. The assault alleged was a kick to the head which resulted in the child becoming unconscious followed by a further kick to the head. My client spent a number of days in jail before being released following a successful bail application.

Following advice, my client plead guilty. During sentencing, context was provided to His Honour regarding the lead up to the assault and how the victim contributed to what transpired. The remorse and contrition that my client had demonstrated were highlighted as well as his mental health struggles and the attempts that my client had made to overcome these issues.

Ultimately His Honour was satisfied that notwithstanding the relative seriousness of the offence, a custodial sentence was not warranted and did not achieve the purposes of sentencing. As such, my client was released into the community on a bond. This sentence allows my client to continue his work to treat his mental health issues.

My client was charged with domestic violence offences of common assault and stalk/intimidate. During the proceedings, police decided to add another charge of choking. Whilst all domestic violence charges are serious, a finding of guilt in relation to a choking charge significantly increases the chances of receiving a a custodial sentence.

Following advice, my client plead not guilty. After nearly a 2 year battle, with multiple subpoenas issued to the Department of Home Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, Queensland Police Service, Victoria Police and NSW Police, NSW Police decided to withdraw all the charges and the related apprehended violence order with costs awarded.

This was a great result for my client whose life was interrupted by these allegations and who is now vindicated.

My client was charged as a co-offender in a joint criminal enterprise resulting in the assault of a female which left the victim naked.

My client was sentenced to a term of full time custody as a result of his part in the assault. Following legal advice, my client lodged a severity appeal and was released on appeals bail following a successful release application at Central Local Court.

On appeal in the Downing Centre District Court, submissions were made concerning legal technical aspects relating to the culpability of an offender in a joint criminal enterprise. Further submissions were made concerning my client’s history, and his rehabilitative efforts since the offence.

Despite my client having a lengthy criminal history, His Honour was persuaded that my client’s penalty should be served in the community rather than in full-time custody.

This was a great result for my client who was originally sentenced to 12 months imprisonment but was now able to serve his sentence within the community.

During the holiday period, my client was at a Christmas party when an argument ensued between my client and another person at the party who was a female. My client broke a glass which ricocheted onto the woman’s face. Police became involved and the victim told police that my client punched her in the face. My client was arrested, charged and released on bail.

My client was concerned about how an assault on a female and a criminal record would effect his future work prospects and potential visa applications. After seeking advice, my client plead guilty. During sentencing, discussions occurred with His Honour regarding the rehabilitative efforts that my client had undertaken and continued to undertake amongst other things. Despite the prosecution pressing for a conviction, His Honour was satisfied that the purposes of sentencing could be satisfied in my client’s case without the imposition of a conviction/criminal record.

This was a great result for my client who can now maintain his crime free record and pursue his career and travel ambitions without a criminal record.

My client was charged with affray, which basically means using or threatening unlawful violence towards another, and whose conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his or her safety. Affray carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. My client was also charged with offensive behaviour was carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment.

My client was concerned about the potential penalties for this offence including but not limited to imprisonment and a criminal record.

Through negotiations with police, it was agreed that police would withdraw the affray charge. Following advice, my client plead guilty to the offensive behaviour charge. After sentencing submissions were made, His Honour was of the view that the matter ought to be dismissed under section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). This was a great result for my client who was initially facing serious charges carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, to leaving court with no criminal record or conviction. This allows my client to put the incident behind him and move on with his life.

My client was charged with spitting at and slapping their partner.

My client realised the effects that a criminal conviction could have upon their career and future employment prospects.

Following advice, my client engaged a forensic psychologist.

At court, submissions were made to the learned Magistrate concerning the efforts my client had undertaken post the event to address their mental health issues and why a conviction should not be recorded in my client’s case. Ultimately Her Honour was persuaded that this was the correct approach and diverted my client away from the criminal justice system under a mental health treatment plan known as a “section 14”.

This was a great result for my client who can now continue their rehabilitation and are able to pursue all their career ambitions with the domestic violence charge being “dismissed”.

My client was a professional in a promising career who found himself charged with stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear or physical harm after an altercation with his partner which resulted in neighbours calling the police.

During the argument between my client and his partner, my client struck his partner with his car at low speed resulting in his partner falling over. My client was convicted in the Local Court which put his career in jeopardy.

My client sought my representation for an appeal to the District Court. A subjective case was prepared and I made submissions to the learned Judge as to why my client should not have a conviction recorded for this offence. The prosecution were opposed to this approach and submitted that a conviction should be recorded given that it was not a trivial offence and that it was a domestic violence offence. Thankfully the case of Regina v Paris in 2001 from the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal was brought to the Judge’s attention which provided that a Judge could decide to not record a conviction even if the Judge did not regard the offence as trivial. Based on this and the other factors contained in section 10, the learned Judge was of the view that a conviction should not be recorded against my client. As such, His Honour decided to not record a conviction.

This was a terrific result for my client who’s professional career is now not in jeopardy.

My client was subject to an AVO which he breached by attending a prohibited address and damaging property on multiple occasions. Occupants of the house called the police and when police arrived, my client used a knife in an attempt to avoid arrest.

During sentencing proceedings, submissions were provided concerning the positive aspects of my client’s life including his dedication to work and the sincere charitable endeavours that my client had undertaken. Submissions on achieving the purposes of sentencing which did not include my client remaining in jail were provided. Ultimately on sentencing, the learned Magistrate was persuaded that while a sentence of imprisonment was warranted, the objectives of sentencing could be achieved by the sentence being served whilst my client was in the community. This means that my client is not in jail for the duration of the prison sentence.

This was a great result for my client who is now free to leave jail and continue his rehabilitative efforts.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and damaging property arising out of a domestic dispute. My client was concerned about the possibility of jail given his criminal history.

Different options were discussed including pleading guilty, pleading not guilty or seeking a mental health diversion. Ultimately, following advice, my client decided to plead guilty. Upon sentencing, submissions were made to the learned Magistrate concerning the actions that my client had taken in order to try and remedy the source of tension which led to this offending. Further submissions were provided concerning why the purposes of sentencing would not be achieved via the imposition of a custodial sentence. Ultimately Her Honour was satisfied that a custodial sentence was not warranted in my client’s matter. A great result for my client who can now continue on with his life in the community.

My client was charged with 13 domestic violence charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, stalk/intimidate and common assault. My client plead not guilty but was found guilty by the learned Local Court Magistrate.

Following advice, my client appealed to the District Court and made a mental health diversion application. Submissions were provided to the learned District Court Judge regarding why the law allowed my client to be dealt with in this manner, why my client should not be made an example of to the community, and why the community would benefit from my client being diverted away from the criminal justice system. Following a long deliberation, His Honour was of the view that the community would benefit if my client was diverted away from the criminal justice system and dealt with under Mental Health legislation. This meant that the 13 charges against my client were dismissed, meaning no criminal penalty and no criminal record.

This was a great result for my client who was initially facing jail time after being found guilty of 13 charges.

My client was charged with kidnapping arising out of a domestic dispute. Kidnapping carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. My client applied for bail 3 times at the Local Court and bail was refused each time.

Subsequently, my client made an application to the Supreme Court to be released from custody.

Following my advice, evidence was prepared prior to the Supreme Court Hearing addressing the bail concerns and why they could be adequately mitigated if my client was granted his liberty.

Despite the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions opposing bail, Her Honour was satisfied that the bail concerns could be mitigated by the proposed bail conditions put forward on behalf of my client.

A great result for my client who regained his liberty while he continues to fight the criminal allegations put forward by the police.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and was also the defendant in a Police Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) Application due to an incident arising out of a night out in Sydney.

My client approached me concerned about what a criminal record would do to his work prospects in the future. I provided advice to my client and he decided to plead not guilty.  Pleading not guilty means that the police have to compile the evidence and present the evidence to the Court at a date called a Hearing. The police have to satisfy the Court that my client committed the offence beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the Court to find the charges proven.

On the day of the defended Hearing, negotiations were had with the prosecution concerning the weakness of the prosecution case and why the case should not proceed. After negotiations were conducted, the police prosecutor decided to withdraw the charge and the associated AVO. This was a great result for my client which means that as the charge and the AVO did not proceed, my client avoided a criminal record.

My client was charged with separate domestic violence incidents which occurred on different days with the same victim. My client didn’t know what to do as his career and livelihood were in jeopardy. Following my advice, my client plead guilty and underwent a psychological evaluation. Subsequently an application to divert my client away from the criminal justice system under mental health legislation was made to the Court.

Submissions were prepared for Court concerning why it was in the public interest that my client be diverted and why the relevant case law precedents assisted the Court in determining that my client should be diverted under mental health legislation. Ultimately, the Learned Magistrate was satisfied that it was appropriate to divert my client and a mental health diversion was ordered.

This diversion allows my client to embark on rehabilitative efforts without any custodial time, community service, financial penalty or criminal record.

My client was served with a police initiated apprehended violence order (AVO) application which required my client not to consume alcohol and/or take drugs within 12 hours of being near his partner. This police initiated AVO was instigated due to an incident that had occurred earlier.

My client approached me concerned that the AVO conditions would impinge upon his lifestyle if the AVO was made by the Magistrate for the 2 year time period as sought by police. I represented my client at Court and sought about negotiating with police. I pointed out to police why their application might fail in Court and that the most cost effective and time efficient manner to resolve the matter would be to vary the AVO conditions. The police agreed and the AVO was varied, deleting the restriction on consuming alcohol and/or drugs within 12 hours of being near his partner. A great result for my client who is now not subject to the alcohol and/or drug consummation prohibition for the next two years.

My client approached me concerned as a private AVO application had been made against him. I represented my client and appeared at Court for him. My client was concerned about the potential effects that an AVO could have on him and what could potentially happen if the AVO order was made and the applicant subsequently made a false allegation against my client to police whilst the AVO was in force.

While at Court, I negotiated with the other party and they decided to withdraw their application. A great result for my client who can now get on with his life without the AVO and/or an AVO application looming.

My client was the person listed as the person in need of protection (also known as the PINOP) in a police initiated apprehended violence order (AVO) application. The AVO was taken out by police on behalf of my client without my client wanting the AVO. My client told police that she did not want the AVO but the police would not listed / not take any action to stop the AVO application. A formal application was made to the Court on behalf of my client to revoke the AVO. The revocation application was subsequently presented to Her Honour at the Downing Centre. Despite the police application, Her Honour was satisfied that granting the revocation application was the appropriate decision. A great result for my client!

At Parramatta Local Court, my client was charged with stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm arising out of a domestic relationship, contrary to section 13(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). My client was concerned about the punishment for this offence and his future career prospects given the charge.

Upon my advice, my client plead guilty and undertook a psychological evaluation. Subsequently I made an application to the Court for the matter to be dismissed pursuant to mental health provisions. This is also known as a section 32 dismissal pursuant to section 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW).

Ultimately His Honour was satisfied that my client was suitable for a diversion under mental health legislation which means that the matter is marked as dismissed and no criminal record is afforded to my client on the condition that my client undertake appropriate mental health treatment.

This was a great result for my client who can now focus on his rehabilitation and future career.

My client was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The allegation was that our client struck his partner at the time to her head causing a laceration which required stitches. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

My client plead not guilty. During a contested Hearing, the alleged victim was cross examined about exaggerations that she provided in her version of events and why these exaggerations were not consistent with factual events which were not in dispute. The alleged victim was cross examined as to her motivations for making this allegation and the concurrent family law dispute and custody battle over their child.

Ultimately Her Honour was not satisfied that the evidence of the alleged victim was reliable to find the charges proven to the criminal standard. My client was found not guilty.

A great result for my client who now doesn’t have the stigma of a domestic violence charge on his record.

My client was charged with common assault arising out of a domestic incident. Common assault contains a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.

Following our advice, my client plead not guilty. During a contested Hearing, the alleged victim was cross examined about inconsistencies between her version of events in Court and versions of events that she had previously provided to police. Legal argument concerning the onus of proof and what happens when there is a conflict in stories of evidence from different witnesses was discussed with Her Honour.

Ultimately Her Honour could not be satisfied that the prosecution had proved the charge based on the evidence to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and the charge was dismissed.

A great result for my client who can now get on with his life without this criminal allegation being on his record.

My client was charged with three domestic violence offences resulting from a domestic altercation. Two counts of common assault and one count of intimidation.

My client was concerned about potential imprisonment and also what impact these charges would have on his future employment prospects.

During a Defended Hearing at Liverpool Local Court, negotiations were had with the Prosecution to withdraw one of the counts if my client plead guilty to the remaining two counts. Negotiations were successful and one of the charges were withdrawn upon my client pleading guilty to the two remaining charges.

During sentencing, proportionality was highlighted to the Magistrate concerning the effects that the penalties arising from these two offences would have on my client. The Magistrate was satisfied that the best way to deal with these two offences would be to not record a conviction and deal with the matter by way of a conditional release order without conviction.

A great result for our client with no imprisonment, no community service, no fine and no criminal record that allows him to get on with his life.

My Client was found guilty in the Local Court of a Stalk / Intimidate Domestic Violence charge and was convicted with a fine.

This presented a great problem for my client as a Domestic Violence conviction would cause a lot of issues for his future promotion and job opportunities.

Following advice, my client appealed the severity of the sentence to the District Court. At the District Court Hearing, submissions were provided to His Honour that the offending was at the lower end of objective seriousness. Some context which lead to the offending was highlighted to His Honour as well as why the purposes of criminal sentencing would be satisfied by the imposition of a non-conviction based court order. Ultimately His Honour was satisfied that the appropriate disposition would be that of not recording a conviction.

A great result for my client who can now continue his career plans and future travel plans without having a criminal conviction contained in his criminal record.

My Client approached us wishing to get a Apprehended Personal Violence Order against another individual that they claimed was harassing them.

We advised my client to commence proceedings against the individual which they did. At the first court mention, the defendant resisted the application and opposed it.

My Client was then instructed by the Court to prepare evidence, serve it on the defendant and file it with the Court. We provided legal advice to my client on preparing the requisite written evidence to serve on the defendant and file with the Court.

Upon reviewing my client’s evidence, the defendant decided that they did not want to contest my client’s application for an Apprehended Personal Violence Order and consented to the granting of the order.

This was a great result for my client as they got the order that they applied for without the extra cost or time of having to go through a contested Hearing due to the quality of the evidence that they served on the defendant.

This now provides my client with a level of legal protection against future harassment from the defendant.

During a night out, my client was approached by police and decided to run despite police grabbing his arm and telling him to stop. Police gave chase and shouted at my client to stop but my client failed to stop.

Eventually police caught my client and he was subsequently arrested and handcuffed.

During sentencing, submissions were provided to the learned Magistrate concerning my client’s lack of criminal history, his strong prospects of rehabilitation and why the resist police offence fell at the lower end of objective seriousness for this type of charge.

Ultimately His Honour was satisfied that this matter could be dealt with by not recording a conviction, leaving my client to get on with his life with no criminal record. A great result for my client!

Affray is a serious charge as set down by Parliament carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

My Client had left an entertainment venue where he had taken a backpack that didn’t belong to him. The owner of the backpack left the entertainment venue and confronted my client. A fight ensued where a knife was allegedly pulled out by the owner of the backpack. A relatively serious physical fight then took place with many onlookers who called police. When police arrived, my client was arrested and charged with numerous offences.

My Client approached us for advice and representation. In my client’s criminal history, he had had charges for similar offences in the past. We entered into negotiations with the prosecution who subsequently withdrew some of the charges leaving my client with just an affray and larceny charge.

Upon advice, my client plead guilty and during sentencing an extensive subjective case was presented to the Magistrate concerning my client’s mental illnesses and the rehabilitative efforts my client had taken since the event occurred. We also provided submissions on the objective seriousness of the offence concerned and why it was at the lower end of charges of this nature.

Despite having been sentenced to a Community Corrections Order in the past for the same offence, Her Honour was persuaded that the appropriate sentence in this matter would be for a further Community Corrections Order with no jail, community service and/or financial penalty. A great result for my client who can now continue with his rehabilitative efforts to cure his mental health ailments.

My Client was subject to an AVO and had previously been sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for a previous Domestic Violence incident.

During the COVID lockdown, my client and his wife were arguing at home. A neighbour called police and police attended at my client’s house. When police were in attendance, my client’s wife disclosed a domestic violence assault including punches.

My Client was arrested and police refused my client bail which meant he had to stay in jail overnight.

My Client engaged our services wondering if he should plead guilty or not guilty and he was concerned about the potential penalty he may incur considering this was his second offence of this kind and he had breached an apprehended violence order. Following advice, my client plead guilty and undertook an anger management course.

At court, Her Honour was of the view that a custodial sentence was warranted, so ordered a Sentence Assessment Report to consider if there were any alternatives to full-time imprisonment. During the intervening time period, my client completed his anger management course.

Upon sentencing, we made submissions to Her Honour about the context around the offending including the effects COVID had on domestic relationships at the time. We highlighted my client’s co-operation with authorities, the rehabilitative efforts that my client had taken to influence his offending behaviour, as well as his good character outside of this offending.

Her Honour was satisfied that even though this was a repeated offence for my client in breach of an AVO, another Community Corrections Order with community service would be the right way to sentence this matter and avoid jail. A great result for my client who can now continue his rehabilitative efforts.

My Client was charged with intentionally choking without consent which arose out of a domestic incident.

It was alleged that my client had choked his former partner without her consent at his home. The alleged victim reported the incident to police. Police interviewed the alleged victim on video and asked her to reenact the choke on a police officer to demonstrate how she was choked.

Upon advice, my client plead not guilty and took the matter to a defended Hearing. During the Hearing, under cross examination, the complainant conceded that at the time of the police interview she was suffering concussion and may have exaggerated the confrontation which took part between herself and her former partner. It was conceded that my client had most likely shook her around the shoulder and chest area as opposed to choking her.

Due to the evidence of the complainant under cross examination, the prosecution’s charge could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and was subsequently dismissed. This was a great result for my client who was facing a maximum 5 years imprisonment if found guilty.

My Client found out that his partner was cheating on him, and in a fit of rage destroyed some of his property. A small physical altercation occurred of which the details are not resolved. This resulted in the victim attending hospital. During the hospital consultation, as the victim disclosed a possible domestic violence incident, hospital staff contacted police. Police interviewed the victim and investigated the destruction of property and an alleged physical incident. With not enough evidence to lay a charge of common assault or stalk/intimidate, a property damage was laid in relation to the destruction of some of the victim’s property.

My Client approached us as he was an active member of society and concerned about what the ramifications of this incident could have on his future career prospects and visa’s for potential travel.

Upon advice, my client plead guilty. During sentencing at the Downing Centre, we made submissions concerning my client’s personal circumstances, including stresses and psychological issues leading up to the incident. In the circumstances, His Honour was satisfied that it would not be appropriate to record a conviction and instead placed my client on a conditional release order without conviction. A great result for my client who is now free to pursue his future career prospects and travel plans without a criminal record.

My Client was observed speeding by Strike Force Raptor and when signalled through lights and sirens to pull over, he failed to do so. Instead he sped up, and a police pursuit ensued. My Client refused to stop, and police terminated the pursuit due to the speed and danger to the public. My Client eventually stopped and fled on foot but was captured by police. He was charged with a number of charges including a police pursuit, driving in a manner dangerous, not complying with conditions of licence, not disclosing the identity of a passenger as required and speeding 45km/h or more over.

My Client had a criminal history including a finding of guilt for sexual touching without consent for which he was the subject of a community corrections order. This new offence brought him in breach of this order and allowed the court to re-sentence him for this offence.

My Client was most concerned about being sentenced to jail for the above offences, which was a real possibility considering his criminal history and the nature of the police pursuit. Based on the evidence, we advised my client to plead guilty.

Upon sentencing, we made submissions to the Magistrate concerning my client’s background, his rehabilitative efforts, and why a custodial sentence that could be served in the community would be of the most benefit to both my client (the offender) and the community at large. Her Honour accepted our submissions and sentenced my client to a custodial sentence to be served in the community, otherwise known as an Intensive Corrections Order. This was a good result for my client who still has his freedom and is not subject to a sentence of full-time custody.

My Client was on a night out drinking at the Northies when he became involved in a scuffle with other males at the Club. Punches and kicks were thrown and a group fight developed. My Client threw punches and resisted attempts of security guards to restrain him during the fight.

My Client was eventually restrained until police arrived. When police arrived, my client was placed under arrest. During this process my client swore at the police. Despite repeated warnings from police, my client continued to swear at police. While under arrest, my client spat close to police and continued having a verbal argument with police.

My Client was eventually charged with affray, use offensive language, and behave in an offensive manner. The most serious of these charges was affray which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

My Client approached us for assistance. We negotiated with police and police agreed to withdraw the charge of use offensive language. Following advice, my client plead guilty to affray and behave in an offensive manner.

Upon sentencing at Sutherland Local Court, submissions were made to the Magistrate concerning my client’s subjective situation. Submissions were made regarding his level of involvement in the affray, his age, his antecedents, his remorse, his contrition, and the ramifications that his lack of judgment in this situation may have on his future. Ultimately we asked the learned Magistrate to consider imposing a sentence which did not involve recording a conviction. Whilst initially not inclined to do so, the learned Magistrate ultimately considered the unique circumstances of my client and decided not to record a conviction. This was a great result for my client as less than 15% of affray charges result in no conviction being recorded. The recording of no conviction now allows my client to continue on with his future career and travel plans (post-COVID).

My Client was served with an AVO which included conditions:

• You must not do any of the following to the protected person or anyone that they have a domestic relationship with:
  • assault, or threaten her;
  • stalk, harass or intimidate her, and
  • intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage any property that belongs to or is in the possession of her.
• You must not approach the protected person or contact her in any way, unless the contact is through a lawyer.
• You must not go within 200 metres of:
  • any place where the protected person lives;
  • any place where she works.

On a drunken evening, my client called the protected person 5 times and abused them for nearly 30 minutes. The protected person called the police and police started an investigation.

The next day, my client was arrested, entered into custody and provided a police interview. He denied calling the protected person and showed his phone call log to police which did not show my client calling the protected person. The police believed my client and he was un-arrested and released.

Police sought official phone records to confirm my client’s story. The phone records did not confirm my client’s story and actually verified the version of events given by the protected person. As such, police were of the view that my client had lied to them and he was served with a Court Attendance Notice to attend Waverley Local Court.

We provided advice to my client upon the merits of pleading guilty or not guilty. My Client plead guilty to the charges.

Upon sentencing, we made submissions concerning the remorse and contrition demonstrated by my client, his good character, his personal circumstances and the rehabilitative efforts that my client had made since being charged with the offence. Whilst my client had previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an unrelated offence, the learned Magistrate accepted our submissions and decided that it would not be appropriate to record a conviction. A great result for my client who can now continue his rehabilitative efforts.

During a night out with his family, my client became involved in an altercation with another group of men which resulted in multiple fights occurring and a phone being stolen during the fight. Most of the melee was caught on CCTV.

My Client was initially charged by Detective’s with Robbery in Company which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. My Client engaged our services to try and obtain the best result possible. We provided advice on the merits of the Crown case including advice on whether to plead guilty or not guilty and what other alternatives there were.

We negotiated with the prosecution concerning the evidentiary deficiencies of the Robbery in Company charge and persuaded the prosecution to downgrade the charges to affray which carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. Affray in a simplistic sense means using violence in a public place which could make someone who is present at the scene fear for their own safety.

Upon sentencing, we provided some context to the offending including the events leading up tot he incident which provided a rational explanation for the incident rather than the violence being portrayed as wanton violence. We made submissions to the Learned Magistrate concerning the rehabilitative efforts my client had made since the offending, and the remorse and contrition that he had demonstrated. The Learned Magistrate accepted our submissions and placed my client on a bond to be of good behaviour called a Community Corrections Order. A great result for my client who can now get on with his life without the possibility of a jail sentence hanging over his head.

During the COVID lockdown period, my client was at home with his partner who was working from home and their child who was being home schooled. My Client was drinking, celebrating the anniversary date of the passing of a loved one.

An argument started between my client and his partner and partly due to his high emotional state and intoxication, my client lost his temper and punched holes in the wall. The police were called and my client was subsequently charged with a number of charges including domestic violence property damage and two counts of stalk / intimidate with intent to cause fear.

When my client engaged us, we set about negotiating the charges with police. At a certain point during negotiations, we advised my client to plead guilty and my client followed advice. Upon sentencing, submissions were made concerning my client’s good character, remorse, contrition, and the rehabilitative efforts my client had undertaken after being charged.

His Honour was satisfied that recording a conviction for these charges was not warranted and provided my client with a non-conviction based conditional release order. A great result for my client who can continue his rehabilitative efforts and continue on with his life.

My Client went with a couple of his friends to another person’s house over a financial dispute. Upon arriving at the person’s house, members of the group banged on the door loudly and my client shouted at the victim to come outside. The group tried to barge their way in but were stopped by the victim. My Client abused and threatened the victim. My Client eventually left but threatened the victim that he would come back.

The next day, my client threatened the victim via the Internet.

Police investigated, attended my client’s house, placed him under arrest and charged him with stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm and use carriage service to menace/harass/offend.

We represented my client at Hornsby Local Court and provided submissions to the Magistrate concerning my client’s mental health, why he should not be made an example of to the rest of the community and the rehabilitative efforts that my client had made since the offending. Her Honour was persuaded that no conviction should be recorded against my client for both charges and dismissed both charges on the condition that my client enter into a bond. A great result for my client who can now get on with his life and rehabilitative efforts.

After a day out at the races which included winning some money, my client hopped into an Uber. My Client could not locate the money that she had won, and accused the Uber driver of stealing her money (this later turned out to be a false accusation). The Uber driver denied stealing my client’s money. My Client then assaulted the Uber driver nearly causing him to have a car accident.

The Uber driver took my client to the police station where she was arrested for common assault. The Uber driver and his vehicle was searched for stolen money which turned up nothing.

During my client’s heavily intoxicated state, my client accused the police of stealing her money (this also turned out to be a false accusation).

During sentencing in the Local Court, my client was convicted. This had the potential to have grave ramifications on my client’s livelihood. Upon advice, my client appealed this decision to the District Court. In the District Court, we represented my client and made submissions concerning the proportionality of what a conviction would entail for my client, who outside of this offending was otherwise of good character. We also provided submissions  as to the rehabilitative steps that my client had taken. Notwithstanding this though, His Honour had to consider other aspects of the sentencing synthesis including the need for general deterrence and the objective seriousness of this offence which was relatively high. Ultimately though, His Honour was satisfied based on our submissions that my client should be provided a further opportunity to maintain her good character, and His Honour decided that the appeal from the Local Court should be allowed, with no conviction recorded. A great result for my client who can now continue with her employment without the risk of losing her job because of a criminal record.

My Client was shopping at a well known department store. She had taken in an instrument designed to remove security devices from products. My Client set about removing security devices from products, putting the products into her bag and walking out of the shop with them. She was duly noticed on CCTV and stopped by security guards who detained her and called the police.

When police arrived, my client was charged with armed with intent to commit indictable offence, goods in custody and larceny.

When my client engaged our services, she was concerned about the impact her actions could have on her future employment and travel prospects. Whilst analysing my client’s matter, we determined that there may be a possibility of dismissal under mental health legislation. We referred my client to a medical practitioner who specialises in medico-legal services.

Upon making the application to the Court to have the criminal charges dismissed under mental health legislation, the Magistrate was persuaded that this was the right course of action, and duly dismissed the charges under mental health legislation.

This left my client with no criminal record, free to pursue her career and travel plans (post COVID). A great result for my client!

My Client was charged with slapping his then wife and hitting her with a broomstick after returning from a lunchtime gathering.

My Client plead not guilty and engaged us to represent him. During the Hearing, we cross examined my client’s ex-wife concerning her credibility. We then made submissions regarding the lack of evidence, the onus of the burden of proof being on the prosecution and why the evidence of the complainant could not be trusted. Her Honour was not satisfied that the prosecution had made out it’s case beyond reasonable doubt. Her Honour gave herself a Liberato direction which basically reinforced that the onus rested with the prosecution to prove their case and it wasn’t for the accused person to prove that they were innocent.

My Client was acquitted of the common assault charge and the contravene AVO charge.

During a family gathering over Christmas, my client got into a heated argument with his pregnant partner which involved shouting, screaming, swearing and kicking objects. The neighbour called the police and alleged that my client punched his pregnant partner which “sent her flying”. My Client plead not guilty to the charge in the Local Court, but was found guilty by the learned Local Court Magistrate, placed on a supervised community corrections order and fined $2,500.

Because of this my client approached our firm wanting to see what his options were. We advised him to embark on a District Court Conviction “all grounds” Appeal. During the Appeal Hearing, we sought the Court’s leave (which means the Court’s permission) to introduce new evidence, which was granted. We introduced new evidence which supported my client’s innocence and then proceeded to make extensive submissions concerning the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, what that entails, its genesis from the English legal system and English cases such as Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462. His Honour said that he had very grave suspicions that my client was guilty but that he was bound to find my client not guilty due to the requisite standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” not being met. This was a good result for my client who did not have to pay the $2,500 fine, was not subject to supervision by Community Corrections and can firmly be regarded as “not guilty” of the charges.

My Client was intoxicated when he tried to enter the place he was staying in the city. People at the place he was staying refused him entry due to his intoxicated state. An altercation broke out and my client assaulted the people who wouldn’t let him in, spat on the front door of the building, and threatened retribution later.

Besides this event, my client had a previous finding of guilt for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2009 and 2010, as well as a finding of guilt for affray in 2015. At the time of the latest offence, he was also subject to a court ordered bond for a previous charge of mid range drink driving.

Given my client’s history, the imposition of a jail sentence was a real possibility. Upon sentencing, we made submissions providing some context around the offending and the rehabilitative steps my client had made, as well as what we thought was the best option for my client in the future. The Magistrate agreed with our submissions and placed my client on a further bond without a jail sentence. This was an excellent result for my client to assist him in his future rehabilitative efforts.

On a night out in Bondi, my client was under the influence of drugs at a party and became involved in an altercation with another group of people from the party. During this altercation, my client kicked a glass door at the apartment complex and the glass door suffered damage. All this was caught on CCTV. Police arrived and my client was subsequently charged with destroy or damage property and behave in an offensive manner.

We referred my client to a psychologist for an evaluation and based on the psychologist’s report, we made an application to dismiss the charge under mental health provisions. We made submissions concerning the links between my client’s psychological ailments and the offending as well as how the public is best served by diverting my client away from the criminal justice system. His Honour accepted our submissions and dismissed the criminal charges that my client was facing under mental health provisions. A good result for my client who can now focus on his rehabilitation.

My Client was charged with common assault and drug possession. We negotiated with the police to have the charges wrapped up into one charge via a process called ‘Form 1’. The police agreed with our proposal to wrap the charges up into one charge. This was a better result for my client as it resulted in having one charge rather than two separate charges.

Upon sentencing in the Local Court, we made submissions concerning the context of my client’s offending, his contrition, remorse, retribution and rehabilitative steps that he had taken, as well as outlining to the Magistrate what my client’s future plans were. His Honour was satisfied that the best way of dealing with the matter was via not recording a conviction and placing my client on a conditional release order. A good result for my client.

My Client was charged with common assault against another person despite never touching him. Common assault doesn’t require physical touching to be proven but nonetheless in this matter, there was no physical touching involved on behalf of my client.

At an end of season sporting trip, my client consumed alcohol at a bar with friends over a number of hours. Another group of men became involved in an altercation with my client’s group of friends. My Client intervened in the altercation and glassed a member of the other group.

After the event, my client left the bar. Police caught up with him where he and his friends were staying. The glassing victim was rushed to hospital and had suffered serious injuries. My Client previously worked as a bouncer and had a history of violence offences on his record. He was charged with reckless wounding.

At the first sentencing hearing, the Magistrate indicated that she was of the view that a full time custodial sentence was necessary. Due to this, our lawyer submitted that an assessment for home detention was warranted. The Magistrate agreed and a home detention assessment was ordered. At the second sentencing hearing, the Magistrate was persuaded that my client had shown a high level of remorse and contrition for his offending and noted the positive steps he had taken to rehabilitate himself since the offence. He was sentenced to an Intensive Correction’s Order with Home Detention of 9 months and 180 hours of community service. A good result for my client.

My Client had a dispute with another person which involved violence but the police would not apply for an AVO on their behalf. My Client approached us to apply for an AVO on their behalf. We did so and the other party did not agree with the AVO being ordered so it went to a contested Hearing at the Local Court. We appeared on behalf of my client and presented evidence in support of their application. Ultimately the Magistrate was convinced that my client had the requisite fear and that that fear was held on reasonable grounds. The Magistrate granted the AVO offering my client the legal protection that they were seeking.

My Client was charged with common assault arising out of a domestic violence incident where it was alleged that he punched his wife in the head. At a Summary Hearing, we questioned the credibility of some of the Prosecution witnesses and questioned the consistency of the various accounts of what happened. Ultimately, we were able to successfully argue that the evidence was not sufficient to support the charge and the charge was dismissed, leaving my client to walk free with no penalty.

My Client was charged with stalking or intimidating with intention to cause fear of physical or mental harm. The incident involved my client allegedly picking up a large kitchen knife during an argument and blocking the alleged victim from leaving the premises. The alleged victim managed to leave. My Client then followed the alleged victim to another location and a further confrontation ensued. We were able to successfully argue that the Magistrate could not consider the alleged knife incident due to the way in which the police framed the charges. Her Honour accepted our submissions and the charge was dismissed.

My Client was the subject of an apprehended violence order application by police arising out of alleged domestic violence criminal charges. We advised my client to plead not guilty to the criminal charges and the charges were contested during a Summary Hearing. My Client was found not guilty and the AVO application was subsequently withdrawn by police.

My Client was faced with a charge of a further breach of an AVO. He had previously breached the AVO and had previous charges for common assault and stalk/intimidate against his ex-partner. He was also currently the subject of an Intensive Corrections Order for the assault charges and a Community Corrections Order for High Range Drink Driving. Given that he was already the subject of an Intensive Corrections Order (which is a term of imprisonment to be served within the community), my client was very worried about being sent to jail to serve out the rest of his Intensive Corrections Order as a result of this new offence. Upon sentencing, we were able to convince the Magistrate that the current breach of AVO offence was at the lower end of the range of breach AVO offences and highlighted the steps my client had taken to address his drug addiction and alcoholism. In the end my client was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order and avoided serving jail time.