Free immediate support
Quick escape
The following client case studies are de-identified.
Our client had an Intervention Order made against him, meaning he was automatically deemed a prohibited person under section 189 of the Firearms Act 1996. This means our client had to surrender any firearms licence they held and any firearms they possessed. Our client was part of a firearms target shooting club, and it was important to him that he continued to have his firearms licence.
We assisted our client to produce a sworn affidavit and supporting documents. At the hearing we made extensive submissions and successfully convinced the Magistrate to order our client be deemed a non-prohibited person. As a result, our client was able to apply for a firearms licence and be part of his firearms target shooting club.
Our client was involved in a serious case of alleged family violence, including charges of conduct endangering life, recklessly causing injury and common assault. Given the severity of the context of the situation and potential for a maximum term of up to 10 years imprisonment, the case required scrutinous examination by our legal team, leading to the uncovering of a weakness in the prosecution’s case.
We engaged in discussion with the prosecution, requesting to have all charges against our client withdrawn. Due to the weakness in their case brought up by our legal team, this offer was accepted by the prosecution on the condition that we do not apply for costs. After our client accepted this offer, we attended the hearing where prosecution withdrew all charges against them. This is an extremely positive outcome, given the circumstances of alleged family violence and potential term of imprisonment.
Upon being charged with common assault, our client was able to have all charges dropped thanks to the work and negotiations of our team.
As discussion with prosecution began, we raised the defence of self-defence. Through negotiation, prosecution then confirmed that they had received a statement of no-complaint from the complainant, and in light of the position and negotiations, would agree to withdraw the charges on the basis of no-costs being sought against them. Once we spoke with our client and advised them to accept this position, all charges were withdrawn against them.
Our client was charged with recklessly causing injury, common assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a controlled weapon without excuse. Due to the age of our client, their matters were heard in the Children’s Court of Victoria. The maximum penalty for recklessly cause injury and common law assault is up to five years imprisonment.
With the guidance and work of our legal team, we were able to help our client be granted a diversion of which they complied with all requirements, leading to the court to have all charges struck out and no criminal charges on record. A positive outcome for a youth offender
Our client, who was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offending, faced a total of five charges that were heard in the Children’s Court of Victoria. Their charges included theft, obtaining property by deception, retention of stolen goods, possession of drug of dependence and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The maximum penalty for some of these charges was up to 15 years imprisonment.
Thankfully through our efforts, we were able to obtain a diversion program of two months for our client. This was a very positive outcome as it means no criminal records for our client.
Our client was able to receive a favourable outcome for four different charges within the Commonwealth jurisdiction. These include sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia, sexual activity (other than sexual intercourse) outside Australia, using a carriage service for sexual activity with person under 16 years of age and possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service.
The maximum sentence for such charges, if served concurrently, could potentially lead to a sentence of up to 25 years imprisonment.
Our client was 26 years old with no priors who had the support of his family. Thanks to our legal team’s strong submissions in support of mitigation, and the early guilty plea, we were able to achieve an outcome that meant our client was sentenced to four years imprisonment and a non-parole period of 18 months. The minimum sentence for these charges was seven years and six months of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years imprisonment.
Our client was charged with dangerous driving causing injury and careless driving after they had rear ended a stationary car, resulting in the victim sustaining a significant spinal injury. Our client was young and had no prior criminal or traffic history. Our client was incredibly remorseful for their offending, and in preparation for court had obtained two character reference letters, written an apology to the victim and completed a Road Trauma Awareness Seminar. At court, it was agreed that our client was suitable for a Diversion, due to their age, their remorse, their lack of criminal or traffic history and the effort they had made to become a safer and more aware driver. At first, the Magistrate was apprehensive to agree to a Diversion due to the severity of the charges and stood the matter down while they considered the prosecution and our position. Upon returning to Court later in the afternoon, the Magistrate agreed to Diversion.
Our client was initially charged with four offences including recklessly causing injury, criminal damage, unlawful assault and discharging a missile in relation to a domestic violence matter. We were able to resolve this matter at Contest Mention after negotiating with the prosecution to amend the criminal damage charge to willful damage and successfully negotiated the withdrawal of the remaining three charges due to the credibility of the witness statement given by a relative of our client. Our client was given a good behaviour bond without conviction.
Our client was charged with 20 theft charges with a total value of $30,769.16. Our client was young and had recently immigrated to Australia, and the alleged offending had occurred at her place of work. They had no prior criminal or traffic history in Australia or overseas. At the time of the offending, they were studying for a degree in healthcare, and as a result of the charges, our client was excluded from obtaining the necessary worker screenings and therefore was unable to continue their studies. We negotiated with the prosecution to consolidate the 20 charges of theft, into one charge of theft and were able to reduce the total value of the theft by $10,000. We advocated for our client to receive a Diversion, as our client had no criminal or traffic history, was incredibly remorseful for their offending and a criminal record would greatly impact their ability to pursue a career in healthcare. At first, the Magistrate was apprehensive to sentence our client to a Diversion Program, as the offending was in their opinion, far too serious, however we were given the opportunity to make submissions to the Magistrate to convince them otherwise. We were successful in convincing the Magistrate by way of submissions, and our client received Diversion.
Our client was charged with exceeding the speed limit by 45km/h. We successfully defended our client’s matter with a Sudden or Extraordinary Emergency Defence under Section 322R of the Crimes Act 1958 (VIC). While the Magistrate presiding over the matter found that the charge of exceeding the speed limit by 45km/h was proven beyond reasonable doubt, they also accepted that our client reasonably believed that there was an emergency, and that their conduct was a reasonable response to the circumstances. The Magistrate found our client not guilty by virtue of the Defence of Sudden or Extraordinary Emergency. In addition to our client's finding of not guilty, the Magistrate also granted our Application that the Chief Commissioner was to pay for our client’s legal fees.
Our client was charged with criminal damage. Our client suffered from complex mental health illnesses which contributed to their offending and had already paid restitution for the damages caused shortly after the incident. We were able to negotiate with the prosecution – advising them of the circumstances around our client’s offending, as well as the efforts they had already made to pay for the damages – and managed to successfully withdraw the charge. At the hearing, the matter was formally struck out by the Magistrate.
Our client was charged with six violent offences relating to an assault, including intentionally causing injury, unlawful assault and causing reckless injury. Our client was young, had no prior criminal history and had committed no further offences since the assault. We were able to negotiate the withdrawal of four of the six charges which downgraded the severity of our client’s offending. Our client was sentenced to pay a fine and received no conviction.
Our client had originally been charged with a total of 10 charges, including two counts of common law assault, arson, two counts of criminal damage, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, assault with a weapon, reckless driving, failure to stop on police request and reckless conduct endangering life. We entered into negotiations with the prosecution, and three charges were withdrawn. Our client had been suffering from a decline in their mental health at the time of the offending and was admitted to the hospital. We sought relevant psychological reports to support our submission regarding our client’s mental health.
Our client pleaded guilty to the seven charges and was sentenced to 28 days imprisonment, which was reckoned as time already served. Their licence was disqualified for six months, and they were also placed on a good behaviour bond for 18 months with conditions of continuing to seek mental health treatment. This was a great outcome considering the seriousness of the offence and the large number of charges.
Our client was eligible for a discount in sentencing because they elected to plead guilty. The Magistrate indicated that if our client pleaded not guilty and were found guilty later, they would have imposed a term of imprisonment for six months and a two-year Community Corrections Order (CCO).
We successfully represented a client in a County Court of Victoria sentence appeal. Our client had earlier been sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court with conviction to a Community Corrections Order for Sexual Assault. Sexual Assault is a serious offence and carries a 10-year maximum sentence. Our client was not an Australian citizen and had hoped to settle in Australia and become an Australian citizen. A conviction would have almost certainly eliminated those hopes. We successfully argued on appeal that a conviction should not be imposed. On appeal, the County Court did not impose any conviction for the charge of sexual assault.
We had previously represented our client in a criminal case involving charges of drug cultivation. Due to police investigations into their criminal matter, our client’s home was subjected to a confiscation and restraining order. If unchallenged, a confiscation order can mean that the police can seize and sell a client’s assets should they be convicted of the criminal charge. As their representative, we acted quickly to apply for an exclusion order to protect our client’s interest in their home. Ultimately, the restraining order placed on our client’s home was set aside, and our client could retain their interest in the property despite having been convicted of some criminal charges.
Our client was charged with intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury and unlawful assault with a meat cleaver, among other charges. The offending was of a very serious nature and involved drug use and family violence. The accused had relevant criminal priors, which exacerbated their prospects of success in this case. The defence submissions focused on our client’s need for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Ultimately, our client was sentenced to a short imprisonment of 80 days, 69 of which they had already served. This was a fantastic outcome, as our client was initially facing a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for a charge of intentionally causing serious injury.
Our client was charged with the cultivation of a commercial quantity of narcotic plants and trafficking a commercial quantity of cannabis, among others. A total of 213.43kg of cannabis was located at their property, and our client made full admissions in their interview. Through negotiation, we were able to reduce the number of charges laid against our client, and they ultimately faced a single charge of cultivation of commercial quantities of narcotic plants. As part of our client’s defence, we obtained medical reports that would inform the court of their significant health issues and personal circumstances.
Considering these facts, the Judge did not impose an immediate term of imprisonment, and ultimately, our client was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order. This is an excellent outcome considering the large quantities of the drugs located at our client’s residence and the fact that our client initially faced a 25-year term of imprisonment as a maximum penalty. Our client avoided a term of imprisonment altogether.
Our client was charged with contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order where they were the respondent, and their ex-partner and child were the protected persons. We negotiated with the police to reduce the charges to one breach. Ordinarily, for breach proceedings, a diversion is not available to those accused. Despite this, we got our client a diversion for this kind of charge. A diversion is a great result for this client as this kind of sentence means they do not receive a criminal record.
Our client achieved a favourable outcome for facing 100 charges. The client sought our representation after being charged with various offences, some allegedly committed while on bail for other pending matters. These charges included theft, attempted theft, theft of a motor vehicle, reckless conduct endangering life, dealing property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, failing to answer bail, committing an indictable offence while on bail, burglary, handling stolen goods, and various driving offences.
The alleged offences involved 18 complainants and 10 businesses, where the damage of the alleged offending was in excess of $80,000.
To secure bail, our client needed to meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances and demonstrate that they did not pose an unacceptable risk. During the bail application, we highlighted the following compelling circumstances: our client had no prior experience with incarceration, stable accommodation, employment, strong family support, PTSD and memory loss, and a partner dealing with a difficult pregnancy.
The client also presented a surety of $1,000 and our client's suitability for the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) program while emphasising that any delay in their case would be detrimental.
We addressed the primary concern of re-offending by proposing strict bail conditions, including a curfew, to mitigate the risk. The Magistrate accepted our arguments and granted bail. This positive outcome is particularly noteworthy given the numerous charges our client faced, many of which were committed while they were already on bail for another offence.
In late 2019, an interim intervention order was taken out against our client. The interim order was given based on allegations that our client was heard on the protected person’s property walking up and down the driveway, jumping fences, and tapping on doors and windows. The protected person alleged that our client's car had been seen outside their residence on multiple occasions.
Our client argued that the two had never met or in any way knew one another until the serving of the interim intervention order and a court date.
Our client took out a cross-application, and it soon became apparent that the protected person’s ex-boyfriend was our client's family member. Therefore, the ex-boyfriend and his wife also applied for intervention orders under our guidance. All three applications were contested at a Mention Hearing, where we made submissions detailing the protected person's application was vague. The Magistrate requested further and better particulars to be filed before the Contest Hearing, the protected person never filed these documents. We got a favourable outcome for all three of our clients – the protected person's original application against our youngest client being rejected, and all three cross applications against the protected person being ordered for two years with costs.
