Charged, Negotiated and Withdrawn

MA was charged with two offences namely, ‘Armed with intent’ contrary to section 114(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Affray’ contrary to section 93C Crimes Act 1900.

MA pleaded not guilty to both charges. Chris Cole reviewed the Brief of Evidence in its entirety including reviewing CCTV footages and perusing statements made by independent witnesses. After careful analysis, it became evident that self-defence is a strong argument for MA.

Chris Cole prepared representations to the police to withdraw the mentioned charges on the basis of self-defence. Initially, the Commander refused to accept the representations and the matter was set for hearing. At the end, the charges were withdrawn, and the matter was dismissed.

This is a successful negotiation story.

No Imprisonment for Conviction of Reckless Wounding, ICO ordered for 22 months.

IR was convicted with the offence of ‘Reckless Wounding’ contrary to section 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for seven (7) years.

Chris Cole represented IR at the Downing Centre Local Court before Magistrate Swain LCM. Chris tendered a bundle of various materials on IR’s behalf including a Psychiatric Report, letters from the IR’s wife, mother and other people who know him. Also tendered are his personal letters to the Magistrate and to the victim. Chris also prepared a lengthy written submissions on behalf of IR.

Her Honour was of the view that there was no other alternative than imprisonment for IR’s offence. However, as Chris has submitted, Her Honour ordered the term of imprisonment be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO). IR is sentenced with the term of ICO for 22 months and 15 days.

With the view of the nature of the offence and maximum penalty that could have been imposed, this is a reasonable result for IR.

Minimal fine ordered against a company convicted with five counts of 'Failure to Nominate Driver'

OP, a company, was convicted with five (5) counts of ‘Failure to Nominate Driver’ contrary to section 188(1) of the Road Transport Act 2013. The maximum penalty for the offence is 100 penalty units which is equivalent to $11,000.00.  

Chris Cole represented OP on this matter and appeared before Her Honour Magistrate Giles at the Downing Centre Local Court. OP was sentenced with the penalty of only $2,500.00 in relation to all five (5) counts OP was convicted with.

This is an outstanding result for OP considering that the last fine which was given to the company for that offence was $3,813.00.

Failed to lodge BAS and Income Tax Return, minimal fine of $1,500 ordered

MB was charged with ‘failure to lodge Business Activity Statement’ and’ failure to lodge Income Tax Return’ contrary to section 8C(1)(a) of the Tax Administration Act 1953. In MB’s circumstances, the maximum possible fine that can be imposed for the first charge is $43,600. Consequently, the maximum possible fine that can be imposed for the second charge is $15,000.

Chris Cole represented MB on his matter at the Downing Centre Local Court. MB entered guilty pleas on 9 counts of failure to lodge Business Activity Statement and 3 counts of failure to lodge Income Tax Return. Her Honour imposed a total sum of $1,500 fine for all of the above convictions.

In comparison with the total maximum possible fine the Court can impose against MB, MB received a great outcome with a very low fine imposed.

Convicted with mid-range drink-driving, small fine and no term of imprisonment imposed

JB was charged with ‘driving with middle range PCA’ contrary to section 110 (4)(A) of the Road Transport Act 2013 after a finding of 0.114 blood alcohol concentration. The offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment for 9 months, a maximum fine of $2,200 or both for first offence.

Chris Cole represented JB and the matter came before the Sutherland Local Court.

Chris tendered materials including Affidavit and Character References on behalf of JB. The Presiding Magistrate imposed a fine of only $1,000 and a 3-month mandatory interlock order with no term of imprisonment.

With the seriousness of the driving offence, this is an impressive result for JB.

Successful severity appeal, sentence significantly reduced

R v MV

MV was charged with one count of murder contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900. He pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 16 years and 2 months.

Chris Cole filed a severity appeal on behalf of MV in the Court of Criminal Appeal. This appeal was successful and MV was re-sentenced to a period of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months.

This was a great result for MV considering the maximum penalty for a charge of murder is a life sentence of imprisonment.

Charged with seven offences including assault an officer and resist police, successful s 32 application

R v JB

JB was charged with seven offences including fail to leave premises, resist police, assault an officer in the execution of their duty and more.

The charges arose after JB attended a music festival and was denied entry due to intoxication.

Chris Cole represented JB and noted that a section 32 application pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act would be appropriate due to JB’s mental state at the time of offending.

Medical reports were obtained and the matter came before Her Honour Wynhausen at the Burwood Local Court. Her Honour accepted the application, and ordered JB to continue his mental health treatment plan as an alternative to a criminal conviction.

This was an excellent result for JB as he was able to maintain his clear criminal record, as well as access the medical services that he required.

Drove whilst licence was suspended, no conviction recorded

R v MT

MT was charged with ‘drive whilst licence suspended’ contrary to section 54(3) of the Road Transport Act. That offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of six months, and a maximum fine of $3,300.00.

Chris Cole represented MT and the matter came before the Downing Centre Local Court.

Affidavits and character references were tendered, and the presiding Magistrate chose not to record a conviction against MT. The matter was dismissed pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

This was a great result for MT who did not receive a criminal record and was able to continue driving.

Arrested for drug possession one day into Conditional Release Order, no conviction recorded

R v TM

TM was charged with ‘possessing a prohibited drug’, namely cocaine, contrary to section 10 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Unfortunately for TM, at the time he was charged he was one day into a Conditional Release Order which was imposed by the Court for a driving matter.

TM pleaded guilty to ‘possessing a prohibited drug’, and the matter proceeded to sentence in the Downing Centre Local Court on 24 April 2019.

TM had undertaken a substantial amount of rehabilitation and community service work. Chris Cole appeared for TM at the sentence.

Chris Cole convinced the magistrate not to take any action on the breach of the Conditional Release Order. TM was given a further opportunity, and a further Conditional Release Order without conviction was imposed by the magistrate.

This was a great result for the client, as he could maintain his conviction-free criminal record and good character.

Charged with drink-driving (low-range), avoids criminal conviction

R v DM

DM was charged with ‘drive with low-range PCA’ contrary to section 110 of the Road Transport Act 2013.

Chris Cole represented DM and obtained extensive subjective material in order to prepare for his matter.

DM came before the Downing Centre Local Court and the presiding Magistrate accepted this material, and chose not to record a conviction. DM was placed on a Conditional Release Order for the duration of 12 months pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

This was a great result for DM as he avoided a criminal record.

Caught with prohibited drug, charge dismissed with no criminal record or bond

R v SK

SK was charged with ‘possess prohibited drug’ contrary to section 10(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985.

Chris Cole represented SK in the Downing Centre Local Court.

The presiding Magistrate accepted representations made on behalf of SK, and dismissed the matter pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

She did not receive a criminal conviction.

This was a great result for SK as she was able to avoid any criminal record.

Convicted for damaging property, raised visa concerns - on appeal no conviction

R v SV

SV pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one count of ‘destroy/damage property’ contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act 1900.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

Chris Cole did not act for SV in the Local Court. In the Local Court the Magistrate convicted and fined SV for the offence. This was problematic for SV as he was on a bridging visa and had applied for permanent residency.

Chris Cole appeared on appeal in the District Court at Parramatta on the 11th April 2019.

Chris made submissions to the learned Judge as to why SV ought not to be convicted of the offence. The Judge agreed, upheld the appeal and instead placed SV on a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of nine months.

This result meant that SV’s ‘visa issues’ were obviated.

This was a great result as SV was married and had a young child born in Australia. He was able to remain with his family.

Drives whilst disqualified three times, manages to avoid conviction

R v JF

JF was charged with driving whilst disqualified in 2018. Chris Cole representd JF and his matter was adjourned in December 2018 so that he may obtain an interlock licence.

In the intervening period before this licence was obtained JF committed two further offences of driving whilst disqualified.

JF’s matter came before the Manly Local Court and Christopher Cole persuaded the presiding Magistrate not to record convictions against him. Instead he was sentenced pursuant to section 9(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and placed on three times Conditional Release Orders for the duration of two years.

This was an outstanding result for JF considering that he had re-offended two times. He was able to avoid a criminal record.

Serious sexual assault charge, successful negotiations and charge dismissed pursuant to s10(1)(a)

R v VL

In June 2017 VL was charged with an offence of sexual intercourse without consent. Chris Cole acted for VL in these proceedings.

 VL’s matter proceeded to a committal hearing in the local court, where the complainant was ordered to be cross-examined on their statement to police.

Troy Edwards of Counsel was briefed to appear at committal. Following rigorous cross-examination by Mr Edwards, the DPP indicated that they would like to negotiate on the charges.

Chris offered an alternative charge of intimidate with intent to cause mental harm, which the DPP accepted in full satisfaction.

The matter proceeded to sentence in the District Court on 4 April 2019. After submissions were made and various materials tendered, the Learned Judge was of the view that it would be inexpedient to record a conviction and additionally, to inflict any further punishment on VL.

Therefore, the charge was dismissed pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999.

This meant that VL maintained a conviction-free record and was not subject to any punishment by the court.

Possess prohibited drug, Section 10(1)(a) dismissal even with previous Conditional Release Order

R v DS

On 2 April 2019, Chris Cole appeared for DS in the Local Court of NSW. DS was charged with and pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited drug.

DS was in an unfortunate position in that he had previously been found guilty of an offence and sentenced to a Conditional Release Order without conviction, pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act.

The previous Conditional Release Order expired two months prior to the commission of this offence.

After material was tendered and submissions were made for a further non conviction, the presiding magistrate deemed it inexpedient to record a conviction, and additionally dismissed the matter without imposing a Conditional Release Order.

This meant that the charge was dismissed in its entirety. This was another fantastic result, one in which DS could maintain his good character and standing within the community.

Show cause bail, bail granted, commercial quantity prohibited drug

R v KD

On 26 March 2019 Christopher Cole appeared in the Supreme Court of NSW on a ‘show cause’ release application for the accused KD.

KD was charged with supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, as well as an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug.

KD was also on bail for other alleged offences at the time of his arrest.

Both the commercial quantity charge and the fact that KD was on bail at the time of his arrest, triggered two ‘show cause’ events.

A substantial amount of the material was tendered on KD’s behalf and eventually the judge determined that KD had shown cause as to why his detention was no longer justified. He was released on strict conditional bail.

Considering KD had to show cause for two events, this was a fantastic result for the client. The matter remains on foot in the Local Court.

Charged with dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage, has charges dismissed

R v GC

GC was charged with one count of ‘dishonestly obtain a financial advantage’ ($500,000.00) contrary to section 192D of the Crimes Act 1900.

GC pleaded not guilty and was committed to stand Trial in the Sydney District Court.

Chris Cole instructed counsel at Trial. Following a successful application to have the trial separated from that of the accused, the Director of Public Prosecutions gave a direction that there were to be no further proceedings against GC and the charge was dismissed.

GC had been on Bail for over three years when his charge was dismissed. This direction was a great relief for the client and a fantastic result.

Charged with 'use carriage service to harass', successfully have charges withdrawn

R v VD

VD was charged with one count of ‘use carriage service to harass’, contrary to section 474.17 of the Criminal Code contained in schedule 1 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The maximum term of imprisonment for this offence is three years, making it a relatively serious charge.

Chris Cole represented VD and his matter was heard in Fairfield Local Court. VD had been bail refused for over six months and Police sought to adjourn the matter. Cole opposed the adjournment and the presiding Magistrate agreed.

The Police ended up withdrawing the charge and the associated AVO. This was a great result for VD as he had no resulting criminal record and no AVO.

Charge of common assault, no criminal conviction recorded

R v EH

EH was charged with one count of ‘common assault’, contrary to the Crimes Act 1900. A charge of common assault carries a maximum term of imprisonment of two years. Christopher Cole represented EH and a plea of guilty was entered at the Burwood Local Court.

The presiding magistrate accepted representations made on behalf of EH and sentenced her pursuant to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1995. No conviction was recorded and instead EH was placed on a Conditional Release Order to be of good behaviour for 18 months. This was a fantastic result for EH as she was able to maintain a clear criminal record.

Handed ADVO, Police agree to withdraw application

R v TP

TP had an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order made against him by Police following a domestic incident. Christopher Cole represented TP and his matter was heard at the Downing Centre Local Court.

Cole opposed the orders on behalf of TP, and Police agreed to withdraw the ADVO application against him. TP was very happy with this result.