SUPPLY PROHIBITED DRUG – (District Court)
Our client a 25 year old man was apprehended with the trafficable quantity of the drug commonly known as ‘ecstasy’ with evidence that he had the tablets in his possession for the purpose of supplying others. To make the matter significantly more problematic our client was on a bond for a previous supply. The seriousness of the offence aggravated by the existing bond meant that there was a very real prospect our client would be sentenced to a term of full time imprisonment. Instructing Mr Wilcher, we prepared extensive written submissions accompanied by strong subjective material and were able to successfully argue that an alternative to full time imprisonment existed. Our client was sentenced to a community service order for the breach matter and a wholly suspended sentence for the fresh matter. Importantly throughout the process, steps were put in place to ensure that our client has learned from his offending and is therefore unlikely to re-offend in the future.
DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH –(District Court)
Our client, a man of good character, was charged with this serious offence after a collision where he unintentionally proceeded through a red light resulting in the tragic death of an unrestrained taxi driver. Case law provides that in normal circumstances a term of imprisonment of at least 3 years should follow. We instructed Mr Wilcher and prepared a very strong subjective case. Although the DPP were strenuously seeking a term of full time imprisonment our arguments were largely accepted by His Honour and although sentencing our client to a term of imprisonment wholly suspended the term pursuant to Section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act). This represented an outstanding result and it was only due to determination and hard fought tactics that we were able to obtain this result.
POSSESS PROHIBITED DRUG – (Local Court)
Our client, a 28 year old man was detected by police to be in possession of a number of tablets commonly known as “ecstasy” (2.469 grams) at a music festival and was remanded to appear at Burwood Local Court. The court dismissed the matter without proceeding to a conviction (Section 10) after strong submissions on our clients behalf which incorporated important case law regarding this type of offence.
NEGLIGENT DRIVING CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM – (Local & District Court)
Our client a Doctor aged in his 60’s was charged after colliding with a motorcycle carrying a rider with a pillion passenger. The injuries suffered by the victims were significant and of course our client was distraught. The loss of our clients licence would result in him not being able to continue to practice as a doctor as he was regularly required to attend to after- hour’s house calls throughout metropolitan Sydney. On appeal to The Sydney District Court, instructing Mr Wilcher our client received the benefit of a non-conviction (Section 10) which means he did not lose his licence and could continue to practice as a doctor.
SUPPLY LIQUOR TO MINOR – (Local Court)
Our client the licensee of a club received an infringement notice from Police for supplying Liquor to a minor (vicariously). Following a contested hearing over two days and extensive cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and persuasive submissions, the matter was dismissed outright. As a result our client did not incur a ‘strike’ on the clients liquor licence.
PERMIT INTOXICATION – (Local & District Court)
Our client, an experienced hotelier, was issued with a court attendance notice after Police detected a noticeably intoxicated patron on the premises in our client’s absence. After receiving a modest fine for the offence we were instructed to appeal and after making strong submissions including the tender of a plan of management, a Judge of the District Court dismissed the matter pursuant to Section 10 of The Sentencing Procedure Act meaning our client did not incur a ‘strike’ on his liquor licence.
REFUSE BREATH ANALYSIS – (Local Court)
Our client was charged by Police for refusing a breath analysis following being stopped by Police for her manner of driving. (Refusing a breath analysis carries the same penalties as driving with a high range concentration of alcohol). Furthermore our client had other such matters recorded within the past five years meaning a habitual offender declaration was imminent. After having the facts sheet amended and listening to our submissions, His Honour reduced the automatic suspension of our clients licence to the minimum of three (3) years from five (5) years. Furthermore His Honour quashed the habitual offender declaration and placed our client on a bond pursuant to Section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Procedure act for a period of 18 months. His Honour also imposed an interlock order meaning that should our client so desire she will be driving again after the qualification period of 12 months from the date of offence.
ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM
When the son of leading Sydney Barrister was charged with this offence, CDM Lawyers was the first and only law firm consulted to litigate the matter. We engaged Mr Jim Glissan ESM QC who successfully argued that our client satisfied most of the statutory mitigating factors on sentence and was persuaded to deal with the matter without proceeding to a conviction.
LICENCE APPEALS – (Local Court)
We have achieved several excellent results with both appeals for full licence holders and Provisional drivers (both red & Green P’s) over recent months. In each instance suspensions appeals have either been allowed or reduced from three months. Magistrates have an obligation to ensure the demerit point ‘system’ maintains its integrity and that other drivers are deterred from exceeding the speed limit so it is very important that a strong subjective argument with supporting material provided in each and every appeal.
COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES
CDM Lawyers have been engaged to appear in several computer related prosecutions. Due to our expertise and the knowledge of Mr Glissan, Mr Wilcher and Mr Coulthart, the matters have either been withdrawn before hearing or, after seeing the strength of the defence case withdrawn by the prosecution or the counts (charges) taken away from the jury in the rare instance where the Judge has directed t0 acquit. These matters were not dismissed due to technicalities but rather careful preparation and knowing where to look.
AFFRAY/ASSAULT
Our client, a 22 year old male, was charged with affray and assault following an incident in the CBD. After taking instructions we submitted written representations seeking the withdrawal of the affray matter which was successful. We entered a plea of guilty on our client’s behalf to common assault on agreed facts. The Magistrate dismissed the matter pursuant to Section 10(1) (a) of The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act meaning our client did not receive a conviction or a bond.
LICENCE APPEAL
Our client, a 40 year old male, received a notice of suspension of his divers licence pursuant to Section 33 and 33A of The Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1988 having been detected by police to be speeding by more than 30kph over the limit. A suspension of 3 months would have resulted in loss of our client’s employment. We lodged an appeal on his behalf and prepared very persuasive submissions. The magistrate allowed the appeal and lifted the suspension meaning our client kept his licence.
HABITUAL OFFENDER DECLARATION
Our client, a 32 year old male, was convicted of 3 relevant offences within a 5 year period and as a result was declared a habitual offender, meaning a further 5 years was added to his disqualification period. We were able to show the magistrate that our client had changed his attitude to driving and had moved on in life. The result was that the habitual offender declaration was quashed and our client was able to re-apply for his driver’s licence.
POSSESS PROHIBITED DRUG AND LOW RANGE PCA
Our client, a 44 year old female was stopped by police for the purpose of a random breath test (RBT) which returned a positive reading. A subsequent breath analysis returned a reading of (0.07). Police later located a small amount of methamphetamine in our client’s purse. After extensive preparation and detailed submissions the magistrate dismissed both matters pursuant to Section 10(1) (b) of The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, meaning no convictions were recorded and our client did not lose her licence. The automatic disqualification period for low range PCA is 6 months.
INTENT TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Our client, a 32 year old male, was charged with intent to pervert the course of justice and inducing a person to make a false statement following inadvertent but lawful telephone interceptions. We instructed Mr Wilcher and following a hard fought trial in the District Court a jury returned verdicts of “Not Guilty” on all counts. This offence carries a maximum 14 years imprisonment.
NEGLIGENT DRIVING CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM
Our client, a 20 year old male, crashed his car whilst negotiating a corner in the wet and his passenger suffered injuries. He admitted to police that he had been exceeding the speed limit slightly. There were strong subjective features to this case and the magistrate did not record a conviction, meaning our client kept his licence and was not fined. The automatic disqualification period for this offence is 3 years and carries a maximum period of imprisonment of 9 months.
POSSESS PROHIBITED DRUG
Our client, a 49 year old female, was stopped by police at a music festival after a drug detection dog indicated the presence of illicit drugs. A number of ecstasy tablets were located in the clothing of our client. After a strong subjective argument was presented to the magistrate, we were able to avoid a conviction for our client with the matter being dismissed pursuant to Section 10(1) (b) of The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
HIGH RANGE PCA
Our client, a 39 year old female, was stopped by police for her manner of driving. A subsequent breath analysis revealed a reading of (0.165). Being the second offence within 5 years, the automatic disqualification period is 5 years with 2 years imprisonment. The magistrate considered our submissions and all the relevant material tendered on sentence and decided to impose an “interlock order” meaning our client must only complete a 12 month disqualification compliance period before her vehicle is fitted with the device.
TRESPASS
Our client, a 22 year old man, was intoxicated and looking for somewhere to sleep. He climbed the fence of a residential backyard. The occupants alerted police and our client was charged with trespassing. After strong submissions on behalf of our client the magistrate dismissed the matter unconditionally under Section 10(1) (a) of The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
