No Conviction for Resist Officer, Behave in Offensive Manner and Remain in Premises
Our client is a 36-year-old sales executive from Sydney’s Lower North Shore.
He had been drinking at a bar in Oxford Street following a work Christmas party.
He left and then attempted to re-enter the premises, but was denied entry by security staff due to his level of intoxication.
The guards alleged that he then became aggressive and attempted to force his way into the premises. They called police, who attended the bar and observed our client struggling with staff.
Police say that they heard our client using offensive language, and they took hold of his arm so that they could speak to him about his behaviour. Our client struggled with police and allegedly continued using offensive language.
He was taken back to the police station where he was charged with five offences: “use offensive language in public place”, “excluded person remain in vicinity of licensed premises”, “assault police officer in execution of duty”, “behave in offensive manner” and “resist officer in execution of duty”.
Our lawyers engaged in extensive charge negotiations with police and were able to have the charges of “assault officer in execution of duty” and “use offensive language in a public place” withdrawn.
Pleas of guilty were entered to the remaining charges, and compelling sentencing submissions were made to the court highlighting our client’s remorse, good character and the effect that a criminal record might have had on his current job and future employment prospects.
The Magistrate was ultimately persuaded to award him a ‘section 10’, which means that he avoids a criminal conviction altogether.
Bail Granted for Large Commercial Drug Supply
Our 23 year old client has been granted conditional bail in Central Local Court after being charged with 'supplying a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug' and 'knowingly participate in criminal group'.
Police conducted a controlled operation into the alleged production and supply of methylamphetamine originating out of a clandestine laboratory in Ryde, NSW.
Police used surveillance devices and physical monitoring to track the movement of substances from that location to other parts of Sydney.
Our client was arrested together with four other young men who were allegedly in possession of 2.4 kilograms of methylamphetamine.
It is additionally alleged that our client is captured on surveillance footage handling the packages within which the drugs were found.
All five defendants then came before the Presiding Magistrate in Central Local Court.
They all faced an uphill battle when it came to bail because 'large commercial drug supply' is one of the offences captured by the new "show cause" provisions of the Bail Act - which means that it is very difficult to obtain bail in such cases.
However, our Senior Lawyer Jack Leitner made extensive verbal submissions which ultimately convinced the Magistrate to grant bail to our client.
All of the other four other defendants were refused bail.
It is just another example of how superior legal representation can make all the difference when it comes to your liberty.
Yet Another AVO Dismissed and Costs Awarded in Favour of Our Client
The Presiding Magistrate in Hornsby Local Court has dismissed the AVO brought against our client by his neighbour, and then ordered him to pay our client's legal costs.
Our client and the applicant are next door neighbours in the northern suburbs of Sydney. They have been engaged in various disputes for over 4 years.
The applicant alleged that our client had "harassed and intimidated" him and his partner "at least 15 times" over a one-month period by "prying" on them, "making videos" and "using abusive language" both in-person and in text messages.
Our defence team prepared transcripts of all text messages, obtained relevant videos and arranged transcripts of those videos, gathered photographs and prepared witness statements - all of which undermined the applicant's version of events.
The case ultimately reached a defended hearing wherein it became abundantly clear during the applicant's lengthy cross-examination that he was primarily responsible for escalating the disputes, not our client.
The Presiding Magistrate was scathing in her criticism of the applicant as she dismissed his case and ordered him to pay our client's legal costs in full.
No Conviction for Aggravated Break and Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence
Our Senior Lawyer, Mr Jimmy Singh, obtained a section 10 (no conviction) for a highly-publicised ‘aggravated break, enter and steal’ case heard at the Downing Centre District Court.
After a night out with some friends, our client, a 19-year-old man, was hanging out outside a clothing store with three other friends.
He leant against the door to the store, which incidentally opened as staff had forgotten to engage the security locks on the door to the shop.
Our client, along with two co-accused, then entered the shop and stole a number of items of clothing valued at around $1000.
Members of the public observed them leaving the store and reported the incident to police, who located the group a short time later in an alleyway along with the stolen clothing.
Our client was charged with ‘aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence,’ which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
Statistics published by the Judicial Commission show that 65% of people charged with this offence in higher courts receive a sentence of imprisonment.
Undeterred by this, Mr Singh worked tirelessly to obtain the best result for our client.
Following the break and enter, our client was held hostage in the Sydney siege late last year.
Understandably, this affected his mental health – however it also was a test of character for our client, who was commended for his ‘bravery and maturity’ during the ordeal.
Mr Singh was able to obtain a psychologist’s report to support our client’s case and prepared submissions which emphasised the appropriateness of a lenient penalty.
After lengthy verbal submissions on the sentencing date, the judge was ultimately persuaded to impose a ‘section 10 good behaviour bond’ despite the seriousness of the charge. This means that our client escapes a criminal record, which would have had a detrimental impact on his life and future.
The Judicial Commission statistics indicate that less than 1% of ‘aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence’ cases dealt with in the higher courts over the past 7 years were finalised by way of a section 10 good behaviour bond.
Client Avoids Prison Despite Breaching Suspended Sentence
In May 2013, our client pleaded guilty to Supplying a Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug and 3 counts of Possess Prohibited Drug.
He was given a two-year 'Suspended Sentence' and 3 x three-year 'Section 9 Good Behaviour Bonds' for those charges by the Presiding Judge in Downing Centre District Court. This was an excellent result given the seriousness of the charges.
However, in November 2014, he was found in possession of MDMA ('ecstacy') tablets and a quantity of cannabis, and charged with two counts of drug possession. Those charges caused him to breach his 'Suspended Sentence' and his 'Good Behaviour Bonds'.
In the lead-up to his court proceedings, our legal team gathered material supporting the assertion that our client had taken significant steps towards rehabilitation, but had found it difficult at times and relapsed.
In the result, the Presiding Judge was persuaded that there were good reasons to excuse the breach of Suspended Sentence. The breach was therefore excused and our client was given a fresh two-year section 9 good behaviour bond.
He therefore avoids prison and can continue in his efforts towards rehabilitation.