Court: Downing Centre Local Court

Magistrate: Deputy Chief Magistrate Mottley

Facts:
Our client was initially charged of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years.

We appeared before Magistrate Schurr at Central Local Court in December 2017, where we applied for bail. Ms. Schurr refused bail on this occasion, citing the strength of the prosecution case based on the facts, and the serious nature of the charge.

Joe from our office got to work immediately, gathering evidence from witnesses that would prove to weaken the prosecution case, particularly in relation to the charge carrying a maximum of 25 years imprisonment. Statements were obtained from witnesses that suggested that the injuries caused without the requisite intent.

We appeared again at Central Local Court and applied for bail on a second occasion, about 3 months later. This time Magistrate Schurr was presented with alternative versions of events by other witnesses, casting doubt on the prosecution case and the intent of our client.

Bail was granted. Under strict conditions.

After tough negotiations, about 6 months later, our client pleaded guilty to a lessor charge of Reckless Wounding, the matter staying in the Local Court for sentencing.

Our client was sentenced to 3 months in jail. This was backdated to the period between 13 November 2017 to 5 February 2018.

He was not required to spend another day in gaol.

Our client pleaded guilty to shoplifting at the Downing Centre Local Court. It was her third offence in 3 years, and she had previously been dealt with by a fine and a community service order. The court’s initial reaction was that ‘the only way was up’ in sentencing, indicated that it was considering a full time custodial sentence.

A pre-sentence report was prepared by Probation and Parole Service, which indicated that our client would benefit from supervision from Probation and Parole to address her alcohol and drug issues.

Our lawyers argued that the need for intervention and rehabilitation in the community outweighed the need for punishment by way of a gaol sentence.

We argued that the community as a whole would benefit from the ongoing rehabilitation of the offender, and that it was not the case that ‘the only way was up’.

The sentencing magistrate agreed and in sentencing our client, agreed with us that a good behaviour bond for the period of 18 months was appropriate. The sentencing magistrate made the bond conditional upon the offender agreeing to be supervised by Probation and Parole Service and undergo rehabilitation with the service.

Our client was charged with breaching the terms of the AVO. The client had sent a number of harassing text messages to his ex-partner.

Our client was also on two good behavior bonds for an assault occasioning actually bodily harm and offence of using carriage service to threaten to kill, all involving the same victim. The offences were committed only three weeks after the AVO was made.

One of our solicitors travelled to Wollongong Local Court to argue our client’s case before Magistrate Viney.

We argued that the breach was a minor breach and should be dealt with by way of a conviction with no further penalty. The Magistrate agreed.

In relation to the breach of the two good behavior bonds the Magistrate was of the view that the bonds should be revoked and community service should be imposed.

Our solicitor argued strongly against a community service order. The court agreed with the solicitors submissions and ordered that the bonds be revoked. The client was placed on two fresh good behavior bonds.

The client escaped a community service order and was very happy with the result.

He was extremely fortunate not to receive a heavier penalty for the breaches of the bonds.

Our client was alleged to be involved in the murder of a young man following an altercation between two groups of cinemagoers. It was alleged our client, together with another young man attended the cinema with the intention of murdering the victim. It was alleged that we carried an SKS assault rifle and upon entering the foyer of the cinema shot the victim causing fatal injuries.

Following our client being granted bail before Liverpool Local Court, we set our sights on beating the murder charge, and keeping our client out of gaol.

Our client was accused of Murder, allegedly being committed in a joint criminal enterprise, which is he acted in concert with the shooter with the common purpose, or shared intention of shooting the victim.

The case was listed for trial at the New South Wales Supreme Court. We made strong submissions to the DPP that they could not prove our client shared a common purpose with the shooter. In response, the DPP offered our client plead guilty to a lesser charge of “conceal serious indictable offence.”

Ultimately, our client was sentenced and received a section 9 good behaviour bond, avoiding many years in jail.

His co-accused ultimately received a jail sentence of 20 years imprisonment. Through negotiations with the DPP we achieved the best result for our client.

Our client was charged with breaching the terms of the AVO which was taken against him to protect his ex-partner. Our client had sent a number of harassing text messages to his ex-partner which was a breach of the AVO.

Our client was also on two section 9 good behaviour bonds for an assault occasioning actually bodily harm and another for the offence of using carriage service to threaten to kill the same victim. The harassing conduct which constituted the breach of the AVO occurred only three weeks after the date the section 9 bonds and AVO were ordered.

One of our solicitors travelled to Wollongong Local Court and argued that the breach was a minor breach and should be dealt with by way of a conviction with no further penalty. The court agreed.

In relation to the breach of the two section 9 good behaviour bonds, the Court was of the view that the bonds should be revoked and community service should be imposed.

Our solicitor argued strongly against the imposition of a community service order and sough that the bonds be revoked and the client being place on fresh section 9 good behaviour bonds.

The Magistrate agreed with our solicitors submissions. The client was placed on two fresh section 9 good behaviour bonds and escaped a community service order.

Our client was very happy with the result, and very fortunate that a heavier penalty, such as community service, was not imposed.

Our client was charged with aggravated break and enter, intimidation, 3 counts of breach of AVO and destroy property. These charges are very serious and would have to be dealt with in the District Court with a real likelihood of a full time goal sentence.

Upon reading the brief of evidence, it became clear to our solicitors that the conduct of our client did not amount to aggravated break and enter but rather other lesser offences.

Our solicitors entered into negotiations with the DPP and proposed that our client plead guilty to a steal from person and intimidate on the basis that the charge of aggravated break and enter is withdrawn and the matter is finalized in the local court. The DPP agreed to our proposal.

Our client was sentenced at the Parramatta Local court . The court was considering a community service order but our solicitor successfully argued that that the offence fell towards the lower end of seriousness and that there were many factors in mitigation.

The court agreed with our solicitors submissions and our client was placed on a 12 months good behavior bond pursuant to s. 9 of the CSP Act.

Our negotiations to have the serious charge withdrawn and the matter remain in the local court meant the possibility of goal was significantly reduced.

Our client was involved in a car accident. Immediately after the accident our client purchased car insurance over the phone. A few hours later our client attempted to make a insurance claim for $25,000.

Our client was charged with fraud which is a serious offence that has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The matter proceeded to sentence at Fairfield local court and the magistrate had our client assessed for community service.

Our solicitor successfully argued that good behavior bond was most appropriated penalty given that there was extenuating circumstance such as our client being in shock after the car accident and that our clients conduct was unplanned and that the conduct fell towards the lower end of seriousness.

Our client was placed on a good behavior bond for a period of 12 months.

The client was very happy with the result, and was very fortunate not to sentenced to jail time.

Our client was charged with drink driving with a reading of 0.082. The client faced the possibility of a 12 month driving disqualification upon conviction, however the court had power to reduce down to a 6 months disqualification period.

Our client worked as a construction manager and it was important he had a drivers licence. Without a license our client would face the possibility of losing his job. Our client was sentenced at Liverpool local court and our solicitor argued for a Section 10 which meant our client would receive no penalty or disqualification.

The magistrate took into account our clients good traffic record, his need for a licence and agreed that the matter should be dealt with under Section 10 bond.

Our client was very happy and was able to keep his job and keep his driver’s licence.

Our client was charged with 5 offences of obtaining advantage by deception. It was alleged that our client had used a stolen credit card to obtain goods at four different locations.

These offences attract significant penalties including community service and imprisonment.

Our client was sentenced for magistrate Quinn at Burwood Local Court.

Our solicitor convinced the magistrate that our clients conduct was motivated by need rather than greed and should be dealt with leniently.

The court agreed and decided to imposes good behaviour bonds for each offence.

The client was pleased with the outcome and was very fortunate not to receive a heavier penalty.

Our clients were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, namely a broken nose. One of our clients was also charged with damage to property in company. The charges followed a drunken brawl which occurred inside the Illinois Hotel at Five Dock.

Both of our clients were highly intoxicated to the point that neither could recall any events which took place.

The evidence against our clients was overwhelmingly strong and included CCTV footage. Both our clients pleaded guilty.

Our solicitor encouraged our clients to seek out rehabilitation for alcohol misuse including counselling and by attending Alcoholics Anonymous leading up to their sentence hearing.

Our solicitor assisted both our clients prepare their cases including obtaining character references which helped proved the offences were highly out of character for each.

One of our client had recently suffered incredibly traumatic events within his family and had a close friend pass away days before the offence.
The sentence hearing took place at Burwood Local Court before Magistrate Longley.

Our solicitor forcefully argued the need for rehabilitation of one of our clients. She provided evidence of events that had triggered his behaviour and his need for developing better coping mechanisms.

In addition to the overarching need for rehabilitation our solicitor argued that any penalty that was not centred on rehabilitation would significantly disadvantage our clients prospects of rehabilitation. Given our client was 20 years of age and was otherwise a person of good character His honour agreed with these submissions.

In respect to the co-accused, our solicitor argued that he was acting entirely out of character and that he had demonstrated profound remorse and responsibility for his actions.

Our solicitor argued against a restitution order to replay the damage caused to the Hotel on the basis that no quote or receipt had been provided.
Our clients received a section 9 bond.

This was an excellent result given the social concerns around alcohol related violence.

Our clients were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, namely a broken nose. One of our clients was also charged with damage to property in company. The charges followed a drunken brawl which occurred inside the Illinois Hotel at Five Dock.

Both of our clients were highly intoxicated to the point that neither could recall any events which took place. The evidence against our clients was overwhelmingly strong and included CCTV footage. Both our clients pleaded guilty.

Our solicitor encouraged our clients to seek out rehabilitation for alcohol misuse including counselling and by attending Alcoholics Anonymous leading up to their sentence hearing. Our solicitor assisted both our clients prepare their cases including obtaining character references which helped proved the offences were highly out of character for each. One of our client’s had recently suffered incredibly traumatic events within his family and had a close friend pass away days before the offence.

The sentence hearing took place at Burwood Local Court before Magistrate Longley. Our solicitor forcefully argued the need for rehabilitation of one of our clients. She provided evidence of events that had triggered his behaviour and his need for developing better coping mechanisms.

In addition to the overarching need for rehabilitation our solicitor argued that any penalty that was not centred on rehabilitation would significantly disadvantage our client’s prospects of rehabilitation. Given our client was 20 years of age and was otherwise a person of good character His honour agreed with these submissions.

In respect to the co-accused, our solicitor argued that he was acting entirely out of character and that he had demonstrated profound remorse and responsibility for his actions. Our solicitor argued against a restitution order to replay the damage caused to the Hotel on the basis that no quote or receipt had been provided.

Our clients received a section 9 bond. This was an excellent result given the social concerns around alcohol related violence.

Our client was charged with cultivating a prohibited plant, namely 30 cannabis plants. This charge carries severe penalties and one could expect to receive a term of imprisonment if the cultivating was for commercial purposes.

Our client instructed us that the cultivating was for personal use to treat his insomnia.

During sentencing our solicitor submitted that the affidavit evidence from our client and his partner along with medical evidence that our client was suffering from insomnia indicated that the cultivation was for personal use rather than for profit.

Campbelltown Local Court Magistrate Guy accepted this evidence and agreed with our solicitor that this offence could be dealt with by way of a section 9 good behaviour bond.

Our client was charged with 5 offences of obtaining advantage by deception. It was alleged that our client had used a stolen credit card to obtain goods at four different locations.

These offences attract significant penalties including community service and imprisonment.

Our client was sentenced by Local Court Magistrate Quinn at Burwood Local Court. Our solicitor persuaded the magistrate that our client’s conduct was motivated by need rather than greed and should be dealt with leniently.

The court agreed and decided to impose a good behaviour bonds for each offence. The client was pleased with the outcome.

Our client pleaded guilty to driving with a high range PCA. He gave a reading of 0.176.

The matter was heard before Her Honour Magistrate Baptie at the Parramatta Local Court.

Our solicitor requested our client receive the minimum disqualification period which is 12 months. She made strong submissions relating to our client losing his job and our client’s wife and daughter suffering the consequences of his offence.

Our solicitor handed up evidence of our client’s employment as a tradesman and evidence of our client’s good character as a family man who is closely involved in his church.

Her Honour dealt with our client by granting him the minimum disqualification period back dated to the police suspension and a section 9 bond for 6 months.

No fine was imposed.

This was a great result for our client.

Our client was a 28 year old labourer who was charged with mid-range PCA – 2nd offence.

The fact that this was his second major traffic offence in the space of 5 years meant he was facing an automatic disqualification period of 3 years, a $3300 fine and a term of imprisonment.

Our lawyer enrolled him in the Traffic Offenders Program and helped him prepare references. She appeared before LCM Spence at Mt Druitt Local Court and made submissions that he had a strong need for a licence, that he was at a crossroads in his life and that 3 years off the road would be a crushing punishment.

The Magistrate agreed and imposed a disqualification period of only 12 months and a Section 9 bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months. He also reduced the fine to $800. Our client was extremely happy with the result and could not stop thanking our lawyer.

The Maximum Penalty in the District Court 15 year’s imprisonment or $220,000 fine or both.

During a three day Music festival in Sydney our client was involved in the supply of the prohibited drug MDMA, the drug is also known as ecstasy. Messages were sent and received from our clients mobile phone in relation to drug sales. Notes of amounts of cash, sales and names were also recorded on the phone.

On the last day of the event our client was approached by Police outside the venue. He was spoken to and searched by Police. In his possession he had 70 tablets of MDMA weighing a total of 13 grams. The tablets comprised of three separate parcels of each containing 20 tablets and a further parcel of 10. Our client was arrested and taken into Police custody where he made admissions to possessing the drug and supplying others.

The law in NSW states that ‘a full time custodial sentence ought to be imposed wherever the offender has been substantially involved in the supply of prohibited drugs’. The law goes on to say ‘a full time custodial sentence must be applied in the absence of exceptional circumstances’.

The sentence was heard at Sydney District Court in June 2014.

Our lawyers successfully persuaded the District Court Judge Haesler to find ‘exceptional circumstances’. Our client was sentenced to a Bond of Good Behaviour for a period of two years pursuant to s9 of the Crimes Sentence Act 1999.

An extraordinary result for our client.

Our client was charged with cultivate a prohibited Plant. It was alleged that our client was growing cannabis plants inside his home. Our client has been previously convicted of the same charge and was given a term of imprisonment which was suspended. Our client instructed us that the cultivate was for personal use rather than for supply.

The matter proceeded for sentence at Fairfield Local Court. It was submitted that our client was cultivating for personal use and that there was no evidence to indicate otherwise.

This was supported through medical evidence which was tendered which indicate that our client was suffering from a number of mental health issues. We also tendered evidence that our client had engaged in drug counseling and treatment.

It was submitted that a good behavior bond would adequately address the objective criminality of the offence but also address our clients subjective matters. The court agreed and placed our client on a section 9 bond for two years to be of good behavior.

Our client pleaded guilty to driving whilst disqualified. He was only 21 years old and had a poor driving record starting with speeding, driving whilst licence expired, drink driving, driving whilst licence cancelled and another driving whilst disqualified in addition to a number of driving whilst unregistered and uninsured offences.

Our client was looking at community service or worse.

The matter was heard before His Honour Magistrate Brydon at Manly Local Court.

Our solicitor argued that given the already lengthy period in which our client was already disqualified for, the court should impose the minimum and automatic period of disqualification.

Our solicitor argued that given our client’s youth, being 21 years of age, a lengthy disqualification period was going to have a profound impact on his future, particularly in his chosen trade as an electrician.

Our solicitor was able to convince the court that this would more than likely be the final traffic offence on our client’s record. He had sold his car had undertaken the traffic offenders program. His Honour found that although our client has a short traffic history with multiple offences each year that our client could be adequately punished by imposing the minimum period of disqualification and a section 9 bond for 2 years.

This was a good result for our client. Especially given that all these offences occurred before he had even reached his green P plates.

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1999 s25(1)
Maximum Penalty in the District Court 15 year’s imprisonment or $220,000 fine or both.
There is No Standard Non Parole Period.

During a three day Music festival in Sydney our client was involved in the supply of the prohibited drug MDMA, the drug is also known as ecstasy. Messages were sent and received from our clients mobile phone in relation to drug sales. Notes of amounts of cash, sales and names were also recorded on the phone.

On the last day of the event our client was approached by Police outside the venue. He was spoken to and searched by Police. In his possession he had 70 tablets of MDMA weighing a total of 13 grams. The tablets comprised of three separate parcels of each containing 20 tablets and a further parcel of 10. Our client was arrested and taken into Police custody where he made admissions to possessing the drug and supplying others.

The law in NSW states that ‘a full time custodial sentence ought to be imposed wherever the offender has been substantially involved in the supply of prohibited drugs’. The law goes on to say ‘a full time custodial sentence must be applied in the absence of exceptional circumstances’.
Our lawyers successfully persuaded the Judge Haesler in the Sydney District Court to find ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Our client was sentenced to a Bond of Good Behaviour for a period of two years pursuant to s9 of the Crimes Sentence Act 1999.

In other cases a where people were not represented by LY Lawyers a person with 9.7 grams was sentenced to Gaol for 9 months , a person with 12.8 grams 12 months in gaol, and a person with 12.2 grams was sentenced to 2 years gaol.

Our 22 year old client came before Sutherland Court having an appalling driving record (including negligent driving). Having obtained his learners licence at the age of 16, his licence had been suspended on 3 separate occasions due to speeding offences.  In this matter our client had been charged for driving whilst disqualified.

Our client had provided numerous documents regarding the circumstances of his offending. Our experienced solicitor worked tirelessly to negotiate the police facts sheet and reduce our client’s culpability.

Our client was advised about and successfully completed the traffic offender’s program. He also obtained numerous reference letters from his employer, mother and father and best friend.

Our dedicated solicitor prepared submissions and argued that although our client didn’t have the best driving record, he had a specific need for his licence and was apologetic for getting into his car and driving a very short distance due to a medical emergency.

Magistrate Trad  took into account his personal circumstances and the fact that there was no aggravating factors regarding the offending.

Our client was facing a six month court disqualification. Without proceeding to a conviction, the sentencing Magistrate placed our client on a good behavior bond for 12 months. He was ecstatic with the effort and preparation put into his case by our dedicated solicitor.

Client came to us having a shocking driving record that included multiple licence suspensions and a criminal record involving possession of drugs. He was facing three months off the road for the latest offence. Our client was unemployed and required his licence to drive around to various locations to attend job agencies and job interviews. Our client also had a four year old daughter and he used his vehicle to pick her up from day care. If he was to lose his licence, it would have taken him over 2 hours to pick up his daughter.

Our dedicated solicitor advised our client to complete the traffic offenders intervention program, obtain reference letters from close friends and family and to have drug urine analysis results. Our client wrote an emotionally charged letter of apology asking for the Magistrate’s forgiveness regarding his offending behavior.

Our solicitor presented strong compelling submissions regarding our client’s offending behavior and the circumstances of the offending. He placed greater emphasis on our client’s strong prospects of rehabilitation and the fact that he has taken more responsibility with the care of this daughter.

Magistrate Goodwin was inclined to impose a criminal conviction, but was swayed by the fact that the client had undertaken numerous steps to rehabilitate himself and not re offend.

Our client was found guilty but without proceeding to a conviction was placed on a good behavior bond for 2 years. He kept his licence and was truly grateful for our help.

Our client came to us as a young 22 year old. At the age of 18 he was charged with possession of a prohibited drug, namely methamphetamine. He received a section 10 bond (12 months) for that offence.

He was again charged for possession of a prohibited drug. The likelihood of another non conviction was very low.

However, on the advice of our dedicated solicitor, our client attended and completed the Salvation Army’s Positive Lifestyle Program.

Our client also obtained numerous reference letters from his employer, father and long term friend. Our client also obtained a drug urine test result to confirm that he did not have any drugs in his system.

Given the nature of the offence, the sentencing Magistrate initially viewed the offending as one that warranted a criminal conviction as it was our client’s second drug related offence in four years.

However, our dedicated solicitor pointed to the fact that our client’s circumstances had changed in four years. It was pointed out that our client had made plans to travel to France to study and a criminal conviction would limit his ability to travel and study overseas. It was also submitted by our lawyer that the remorse and contrition of our client warranted a section 10 bond.

The sentencing Magistrate thought long and hard before handing down her judgment. She was persuaded by the fact that numerous documents had been provided to her regarding our client’s plans for the future and his remorse for having offended again.

Our client was found guilty but was not convicted and entered into a good behavior bond for two years. He was grateful for the strong submissions made by our lawyer and the hard work put in to prepare the best possible plea in mitigation.