Our client was charged with Stalking and Intimidating his ex-girlfriend.

She alleged that he had been calling her countless times and hanging up when she picked up.

She also alleged that he had been sending text messages to her phone threatening to harm her. Our client strongly denied the allegations, and the matter proceeded to a defended local court hearing.

The brief of evidence provided by police contained phone records of a phone that our client used and shared with his brother.

Our client insisted that it was not him that made the calls and sent the messages, but did not know if it was his brother or someone else in the house that used his phone.

Our client’s ex-girlfriend was cross-examined at the hearing, and admitted that she would often speak to our client’s mother and brother when they answered her calls.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was our client who made the phone calls and sent the sms messages. The charges were dismissed at Penrith Local Court.

Our client was charged with the offence of common assault.

Our client was charged with common assault and using stalking or intimidation to cause fear of mental/physical harm following an alleged domestic dispute between him and his wife. The case was heard at Parramatta Local Court for a defended hearing in May this 2013.

The Brief of Evidence, particularly the statement of the wife, was inconsistent with our client’s instructions. The wife gave evidence that our client had threatened her life by saying “If you disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, the kids would not have to see your boyfriend again”.

She gave evidence that this was said in an aggressive manner with the Defendant centremetres from her face.

We put to her that what had actually been said was “If you died of lung cancer, the kids won’t have to see your new boyfriend again”. The wife conceded this was what had been said and that the threat was not one on her life.

The Magistrate found the client’s actual words provided a different context to the remarks and they were clearly not threats to the wife’s life.

Further, her Honour found that by omitting what was actually said the client had purposely sought to portray our client in a negative light. On account of this finding she found the wife had no credibility and that her evidence could not be relied upon.

Our client was charged with intimidation causing fear of physical or mental harm.

The prosecution alleged that our client had intimidated his ex-girlfriend by holding a petrol canister towards the victim, threatening to pour petrol all over her and then “light her up”.

After seeking instructions from the client it became clear that our client was suffering from a mental condition at the time of the incident. This was confirmed by his treating psychologist.

At Parramatta Local Court, our dedicated solicitor asked the court to deal with this offence under Section 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900 NSW.

A psychologist report and a treatment plan were tendered in support of the application. The Magistrate agreed with our solicitor and dismissed the charged conditionally on the basis that our client complies with his treatment plan.

He continues treatment, and is doing well with his treatment.

Our client was charged with intimidation, assault, and damage property.

It was alleged that our client engaged in a sustained attack against his partner including at one point using a coke bottle to strike the victim to the head six times causing bruising and swelling to the victim.

Further it was alleged our client had destroyed her computer equipment and made a number of violent threats.

The matter proceeded to sentence at Parramatta Local Court and our solicitor argued that our client was provoked after being slapped to the face by his partner and that these offences were out of character.

Further it was submitted that convictions would put a end to our clients medical career as an aspiring Doctor.

The court agreed that it could find provocation, and decided not to put an end to our clients medical career.

Our client was placed on long bonds pursuant to Section 10.

Our client was charged with intimidation, assault, and damage property.

It was alleged that our client engaged in a sustained attack against his partner including at one point using a coke bottle to strike the victim to the head six times causing bruising and swelling to the victim. Further it was alleged our client had destroyed her computer equipment and made a number of violent threats.

The matter proceeded to sentence at Parramatta Local Court and our solicitor argued that our client was provoked after being slapped to the face by his partner and that these offences were out of character. Further it was submitted that convictions would put an end to our client’s medical career.

The court agreed that it could find provocation, and decided not to put an end to our client’s medical career.

Our client was placed on long bonds pursuant to Section 10.

Our client was a 48 year old man who had mouthed off at his ex-wife’s 21 year old son. Police charged him with stalk/intimidate. Our lawyer successfully negotiated with the police to have the facts amended to reflect our client’s instructions.

Magistrate Swain at Fairfield Local Court took one look at the facts and record, heard what our lawyer had to say and dismissed the charge under Section 10(1)(a).

Our client could keep his record clean and was very happy with the result.

Our client was charged with intimidation. It was alleged our client entered his neighbors property with a baseball bat with the intention to intimidate after a dispute regarding noise levels.

Our client worked in the IT profession which required him to travel overseas for work purposes. A conviction would rrestrict his ability to travel and thus the likely termination of his employment.

The matter proceeded to sentence at Fairfield Local Court. Evidence of the effect of the conviction on our clients career was presented to the court. It was submitted our client was a person of good character and was unlikely to reoffend and that a section 10 was appropriate on this occasion.

The court agreed and placed our client on a Section 10 bond for two years

Our client was before the Court charged with stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical harm, use carriage service to menace/harass/offence x 2 and contravene ADVO. The client faced a possible 2 years imprisonment.

Our client was 34 years old and suffered from mental health issues and had a chequered criminal record.
Our client was sentenced at Mt Druitt Local Court before Magistrate Hiatt. It was argued that our client was in an extremely dysfunctional relationship and was suffering from mental health issues.

The Magistrate took all these considerations into account and dealt with the matter with two s 9 good behaviour bonds for 18 months, 150 hours of community service and a 4 month s 12 suspended sentence.
Our client was extremely relieved with this outcome as it meant he was able to avoid a term of imprisonment.

Our client was charged with Intimidation. He pleaded not guilty in the local court.

The allegations were that our client moved into shared accommodation but was soon after given notice to vacate the room he was renting.

The relationship between our client and the flatmate turned sour when he questioned her about the notice. The flat mate alleges that our client threatened her by holding his fist close to her face. She further alleged that our client was calling her names. Finally she alleged our client got a knife out of the kitchen draw and thrusted it towards her whilst grunting.

Our client disputed this. In a lengthy 2 day hearing, our solicitor put the complainant’s version to the test, showing her the inconsistencies between what she alleged and her text messages.

Our solicitor put to the complainant she had a motive – which was to get our client out of the house before the 2 weeks’ notice and without having to pay him back the bond he paid.

Our client was found not guilty after a lengthy hearing and he gets to keep his good name.

Our client agreed to an AVO without admissions for 12 months before the hearing started.

Our client was charged with Intimidation of her neighbor. Our client instructed us that she had no intention to intimidate her neighbor.

This is an essential ingredient of the charge.

We proceeded to hearing at Burwoood Local Court having considered the brief of evidence and the prosecution tendered the brief to the evidence to the magistrate at our request. We made submissions that the prosecution could not prove intention element of the charge. The magistrate agreed and dismissed the charge against our client.