The Offence of Driving whilst using a Mobile Phone, Successfully Defended

ST was charged for ‘Driving whilst using a mobile phone’, contrary to section 300 of the Road Rules 2014. ST pleaded not guilty to the offence and retained Chris Cole to represent him at his Hearing.

At his Hearing, the police tendered their materials including a photo taken by a mobile phone detection camera. Chris called ST to give evidence as to the identification of the item he was shown holding in the photographic evidence. Chris made submissions that the Magistrate could not find ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that what ST was holding was in fact a mobile phone. Ultimately, the Magistrate agreed and found ST ‘not guilty’ of the offence and the matter was dismissed.  

Enter Inclosed Land Proceedings Dropped

SM was charged with ‘Enter inclosed land’, contrary to section 4 of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. Chris Cole represented SM and successfully negotiated with the prosecution that the matter be withdrawn. The matter did not proceed to Hearing and it was ultimately dismissed.

SM felt a huge relief after her matter was dismissed.

CRO Without Conviction for Driving whilst drugs present in oral fluid

BD was charged with an offence of ‘Drive whilst illicit substance present in oral fluid’, contrary to section 111 Road Transport Act 2013. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 penalty units (or $2,200.00) and an automatic license disqualification for 6 months.

BD pleaded guilty to the charge and his matter proceeded to Sentence. Chris Cole acted for BD at his Sentence Proceedings. Chris tendered subjective materials on BD’s behalf and made oral submissions, inviting the Magistrate to exercise their discretion in the matter. The Sentencing Magistrate accepted the submissions and sentenced BD to a Conditional Release Order for a period of 10 months, without conviction.

Appeal Allowed, Indicative Sentence Reduced and Backdated, Finding Made of ‘Special Circumstances’

BS was charged with ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm domestic violence related (AOABH)’, contrary to s 59 Crimes Act 1900 and Sentenced to 1 year and 16 days in prison, with a non-parole period of 9 months and 12 days. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment. BS has a significant history of similar charges.

Chris Cole represented BS in relation to a Severity Appeal against his original sentence. Submissions were made to the Presiding Judge by both the Prosecutor and Defence. At the time of Appeal BS had already served just over 3 months in custody.  

Ultimately, His Honour allowed the appeal, backdated the sentence further, reduced the indicative sentence and made a finding of ‘special circumstances’. Accordingly, BS was re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, backdated and comprising of a non-parole period of 7 months.

This is an outstanding result for BS who is now due to be released on parole in August.

Numerous ‘Graffiti’ Related, ‘Good Suspected Stolen’, ‘Affray’ and ‘Hinder’ Charges Result in CCO and Fines.

RR had a number of ongoing matters before the Local Court including 23 charges relating to ‘Destroy / damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc’, contrary to s 68j(1)(B) Passenger Transport (general) Regulation 2017 and ‘Goods suspected stolen in / on premises (not m/v)’, contrary to s 527c(1)(C) Crimes Act 1900. He also faced charges of ‘Affray’, contrary to s 93C(1) Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Fail to notify Authority of change in residential address within 14 days’, contrary to s 122(1)(b) Road Transport (driver Licensing) Regulation 2017. A further charge of ‘Hinder discovery evidence re: serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 315(1)(B) Crimes Act 1900, was brought against RR. Chris Cole acted for RR across these matters.

In regards to the ‘Destroy / damage property’, relating to graffiti offences, ‘Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc.’ and ‘Goods suspected stolen’ charges, Chris entered discussions with the Prosecution with the intent to negotiate a sensible plea deal. After discussions with the Prosecution were had, the Prosecution agreed to withdraw 11 of the sequences, in exchange for pleas of guilty to the offences where RR’s tag was identifiable and the ‘Goods suspected stolen’ charge. They also agreed to place the ‘Go onto … running lines etc’ charges on a Form 1.

A breach by RR of his Community Corrections Orders (CCO) was recorded whilst his matters were still before the Court.  

RR’s matters proceeded to Sentence. Chris Cole tendered various materials on RR’s behalf and made oral submissions. His Honour then Sentenced RR on each of the remaining charges. To the breach of CCO no action was taken. To the ‘Affray’ charge a CCO was imposed for the duration of 12 months and an $880.00 fine handed down. The Destroy / damage property’ offences resulted in a CCO for 12 months. RR also received a CCO for 12 months and fine of $880.00 on the ‘Hinder discovery evidence’ charge. In addition, His Honour made a Compensation Order of $5,816.00 payable to Sydney Trains.

This is a fantastic result for RR who was able to avoid any term of imprisonment or more restrictive community based orders.

Successful Plea Negotiations – CRO on Sentence

TR was charged with ‘Break & Enter dwelling-house etc commit serious indictable offence (not stealing / damaging property)’, contrary to s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Cause unauthorised computer function with intent to commit serious indictable offence’, contrary to s 308C(1) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage or cause disadvantage by deception’, contrary to s 192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 and two counts of ‘Enter building / land with intent commit indictable offence’, contrary to s 114(1)(d) Crimes Act 1900. Each of these offences carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment. These matters have been before the Court since 2018. 

Chris Cole represented TR throughout proceedings. Chris entered negotiations with Police Prosecutors for a plea of ‘guilty’ to be entered to one count of ‘Enter building / land with intent to commit indictable offence’ in exchange for the ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc’ charge to be placed on a Form 1 and remaining charges to be withdrawn. This offer was accepted by Police and the matter proceeded to Sentence.

Chris made oral submissions on TR’s behalf and tendered written materials. He made submissions that His Honour ought to place TR on a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without recording a conviction. His Honour was concerned that the community would expect a conviction to be recorded and was ‘in two minds’ about whether he should. Ultimately, His Honour Sentenced TR to a CRO (with conviction) for a period of 9 months.

This is a wonderful result and enormous relief for TR, noting the seriousness of initial charges and length of time the matter has been before the Court.

Found Not Guilty on 7 Counts, No Penalty on Remaining Sequence, Costs Granted in Defence Favour

TI was charged with eight offences relating to a single traffic incident. Namely, ‘Assault Police Officer in execution of duty w/o ABH’, contrary to s 60(1) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Use offensive language in/near public place/school’, contrary to s 4a(1) Summary Offences Act 1988, two counts of ‘Resist Officer in execution of duty’, contrary to s 58 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Not comply with direction to stop/move etc light vehicle’, contrary to  s 67(1) Road Rules 2014, ‘Not stop at line (intersection with no lights), contrary to s 46(1) Road Rules 2014, ‘Disobey no left turn’, contrary to rule 91 Road Rules 2014 and ‘Not give left change of direction signal with lights’, contrary to s 46(1) Road Rules 2014.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the ‘Disobey no left turn’ offence and pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered to the remaining 7 sequences. Chris Cole acted for TI in these matters.

The matters proceeded to Hearing on which occassion Chris cross examined the Officer in charge. TI was then called to give evidence. Ultimately, Her Honour found TI ‘not guilty’ for each of the offences to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’. Additionally, Her Honour was highly critical of the Officer in charge’s conduct, which was captured by a witness at the time of TI’s arrest, ultimately finding arrests on both occasions were unlawful.

Chris then made an application that the Prosecution pay TI’s professional costs. Her Honour subsequently made an order that NSW Police pay TI’s professional costs.

With respect to the offence which TI pleaded ‘guilty’ to, Her Honour noted the plea and dismissed the charge with no penalty pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

This is an excellent result.

Sentenced to CCO Despite Repeated Offending, Breach of CCO and Multiple Contravene AVO’s

YI has a complex history involving Domestic Violence (DV) related offences. She suffers from long-term mental health and drug addiction issues. James Castillo represented YI in relation to charges of ‘Common assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900 and ‘Contravene AVO’, contrary to s 14(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2001. YI was serving 2 Community Corrections Order’s (CCO’s) and an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) at the time of offending.

James tendered a psychological report and made oral submissions on YI’s behalf. Her Honour then proceeded to Sentence YI on both charges. Ultimately, Her Honour imposed a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 18 months on the condition that YI continue with rehabilitation and psychiatric treatment.

This is an outstanding result. Particularly given YI has a substantial history of DV and contravention of AVO offences and was serving 2 CCO’s and an ICO when charged with the offences. 

Guilty Plea Results in Fine Only

RK was charged with ‘Destroy or damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, ‘Common assault’, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900, ‘Stalk / intimidation’, contrary to s 13(1) Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and ‘Intentionally choke’, contrary to s 37 Crimes Act 1900.

RK pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the offences of ‘Common assault’, ‘Stalk / intimidation’ and ‘Intentionally choke’. RK pleaded ‘guilty’ to ‘Destroy or damage property’. James Castillo acted for RK at Judgment and Sentence in the Local Court.

With respect to the offences of ‘Common assault’, ‘stalk / intimidation’ and ‘Intentionally choke’, Her Honour accepted RK’s evidence was credible and reliable. Ultimately, Her Honour found RK ‘not guilty’ of these offences.

Her Honour then proceeded to Sentence RK with respect to the ‘Destroy or damage property’ offence. James Castillo tendered written materials and made oral submissions on his behalf. Ultimately, Her Honour convicted RK of the offence, only imposing a fine of $850.00.

This is a great result.

Sentenced to CRO Without Conviction for Traffic-Related Offence

SV was charged with the offence of ‘Not stopping on stop line’, contrary to s 67(1) Road Rules 2014. James Castillo represented SV in his matter. SV has an extensive driving record.

James entered a plea of guilty to the offence on SV’s behalf and made oral submissions as to why Her Honour should not record a conviction for the offence. Her Honour was satisfied that a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction was warranted in SV’s circumstances, accepting that a conviction for the offence would cause extra-curial punishment outweighing the intended penalty of the offence.

Ultimately, Her Honour placed SV on a CRO without conviction for the duration of 18 months and ordered SV to complete a Traffic Offender Intervention Program (TOIP) within 3 months.

This is a pleasing result.

Drive with Low Range PCA – CRO without Conviction

Christopher Cole represented SL on Sentence for the offence of ‘Drive with low range PCA’, contrary to s 110(3)(a) Road Transport Act 2013.

Material was tendered on SL’s behalf and Chris made oral submissions. Ultimately, Her Honour sentenced SL to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction for a period of 6 months.

This is a pleasing result, particularly given SL relies heavily on his driver’s licence for work. Further, SL’s contract could be terminated if convicted of a criminal offence and he currently resides in Australia on an employment Visa.

Matter Dismissed Under Section 10

Christopher Cole represented JK in his ‘Driving whilst using mobile phone’ matter in the Local Court of NSW. JK had already lost a number of demerit points and relies heavily on his license as a healthcare worker.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the offence. Chris Cole tendered an Affidavit sworn by JK and made oral submissions on his behalf. His Honour had regard to the material presented and ultimately dismissed the matter pursuant to s 10(1)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

This is an excellent result for JK, as he is able to continue providing rural healthcare with the use of his driver’s license.

‘Possession of a prescribed / restricted substance’ Proceeds to Hearing, Client Found Not Guilty!

SA was charged with two counts of ‘possession of a prescribed / restricted substance’, contrary to s 16(1) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

The matter proceeded to Hearing where James Castillo appeared for SA. The Officer in Charge was called to give evidence by the Prosecution. In defence SA and her partner gave evidence. James then tendered written materials and made closing submissions on SA’s behalf as to why she ought not be convicted of the offences.

Ultimately, His Honour agreed with the defence case and found SA ‘not guilty’ on both counts. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.

This is an outstanding result.

Third CRO Without Conviction!

MR was charged with ‘Common assault’ and ‘Affray’, contrary to Crimes Act 1900. MR had recently been found guilty of two domestic violence (DV) related offences, receiving Conditional Release Order’s (CRO’s) without conviction on both charges. James Castillo represented MR in these matters.

A plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the offence of ‘Common assault’ and subsequently, the police withdrew the ‘Affray’ charge. The matter then proceeded to Sentence. James tendered materials and made oral submissions on MR’s behalf as to why a further CRO without conviction was the most appropriate Sentence.

Ultimately, Her Honour found MR guilty of ‘Common assault’ and sentenced him to a CRO without conviction for the duration of 20 months. The CRO is conditional to no further offences being committed, and that MR continues to engage and comply with a mental health treatment plan.

Her Honour made a final Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) for the duration of two years.

Had a conviction been recorded MR would have lost the job he has held for many years and relies upon to support not only himself, but other family members. 

This is an outstanding result and a great relief to MR.

CRO No Conviction Recorded

AL was charged with one count of ‘Possess prohibited drug’, namely cocaine, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. James Castillo represented AL in proceedings.

James tendered a sentence bundle and made oral submissions in support of a Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction.

The Magistrate ultimately agreed with James’ submissions, sentencing AL to a CRO without conviction for a period of 12 months.

This is a very pleasing result for AL, particularly given her employment could be terminated if convicted of a criminal offence.  

Multiple Large Commercial Drug Supply and Weapons Charges Result in Minimal Custodial Sentence

GT was charged with multiple counts of ‘Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug’, contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, ‘Possess a prohibited weapon’ contrary to s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 and ‘Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime’, contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900. This is a very serious list of charges.

Chris Cole represented GT in these matters, briefing Counsel Scott Schaudin. GT was suffering from mental health and substance abuse issues at the time of offending.

The matter was listed for Sentence in the District Court, on which occasion Chris Cole and Scott Schaudin tendered a psychological report and character references on GT’s behalf. Counsel then made oral submissions in support of GT’s role, proposing that his role in the offence was lower in objective seriousness than that of the co-accused, and that the material before Her Honour reflects better than good prospects of rehabilitation.

Pleas of guilty were maintained to the charges of ‘Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug’, contrary to s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and ‘Possess a prohibited weapon’ contrary to s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. The remaining offences were placed on a Form 1.

Ultimately, Her Honour Sentenced GT to an aggregate Sentence is 5 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years. Taking into account time already served, GT will be eligible to be released on parole this year.

Conviction Overturned on Appeal

JW was charged with one count of ‘Use Inside Information to bet on event’ contrary to s 193Q(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900, and one count ‘Possess Inside Information/communicate other to bet on event’, contrary to s 193Q(2)(c) Crimes Act 1900.  

JW was convicted and Sentenced to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) for a period of 18 months on the ‘Use Inside Information to bet on event’ charge. The ‘Possess Inside Information/communicate other to bet on event’ charge was placed on a Form 1.

Chris Cole lodged a District Court Severity Appeal on JW’s behalf.

Chris Cole briefed Counsel, Phillip Boulten SC, who then made submissions in the District Court concerning why Her Honour ought not convict JW, focussing primarily on the extra-curial punishment JW had suffered as a result of the offending. The Crown submitted that although the offence was serious, Her Honour would not be in error if a conviction was not recorded. Her Honour considered the matter and proceeded to deliver Judgment.

Her Honour ultimately upheld the appeal and quashed the conviction, instead placing JW on a CRO, without conviction, for the duration of 18 months.

This is an outstanding result.

6 Months CRO on Drug-Related Offences – No Conviction

RB was charged with ‘Possess Prohibited Drug’, namely cocaine, contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This was RB’s first criminal charge.

 Chris Cole represented RB on Sentence where a plea of ‘guilty’ was entered to the offence.

Chris tendered written references and made oral submissions on RB’s behalf. His Honour considered submissions and ultimately agreed a Conditional Release Order (CRO) for a period of 6 months, without conviction, was an appropriate penalty.

This is a very pleasing result, particularly given that RB’s full-time work would be jeopardized, had a conviction been recorded.

Sentenced to CCO on First ‘Drug-Related’ Offence

PS was charged with ‘Owner / occupier knowingly allow use as drug premises – 1st offence’, contrary to s 36y(1)(A) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and ‘Organises or conducts or assists in organising drug premises – 1st offence’, contrary to s 36Z(1)(A) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

James Castillo acted on instructions from PS. Following negotiations with the Prosecution, sequence 2 ‘Organises etc. in organising drug premises’ was withdrawn and a plea of guilty to sequence 1, ‘Owner / occupier knowingly allow use as drug premises’ was entered. The matter then proceeded to Sentence, where James tendered written materials and made oral submissions on PS’s behalf. Ultimately, His Honour Sentenced PS to a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 8 months.

This is a pleasing outcome for PS, notwithstanding his criminal history. 

5 Year Maximum Penalty, Sentenced to Community Corrections Order

HH faced charges of ‘Destroy / damage property’, contrary to s 195(1)(A) Crimes Act 1900, and ‘Stalk / intimidate’, contrary to s 13 Crimes Act 1900. James Castillo acted for HH in the matter. The maximum Sentence for each charge is 5 years imprisonment.  

The matter proceeded to Sentence where James Castillo tendered various materials and made oral submissions on HH’s behalf. Ultimately, His Honour imposed a Community Corrections Order for the duration of 12 months, subject to the conditions that HH is of good behaviour, and must appear before the court if called upon to do so. His Honour made a Compensation Order for damages, and an AVO was finalised for a period of 2 years.

This is a pleasing result for HH.