call-icon (03) 8600 9922

RESULTS

Traffick Large Commercial Quantity of Drugs, Deal with Proceeds of Crime – 28 Charges Withdrawn

February 15, 2026

Case: Serious Drug Offences Withdrawn on Partner Living with Co-Accused.

Our client was in a relationship and had a baby with her partner. Police raided their residence and found a significant amount of drugs and items alleged to be proceeds of crime.

Charges/ Ch1 – 8 (Traffick Large Commercial Quantity of Drugs); Ch9 – 18 (Possess Drug of Dependence) ; Ch 19 – 28 (Deal with Proceeds of Crime)

Result/ All charges withdrawn

Our lawyer sought disclosure of all evidence by police and argued that while our client was present in the residence, she did not intend to possess any of the items. Forensic evidence, coupled with our client’s good character supported this and all charges were withdrawn.

Stalking; Possess Rifle, Imitation Firearm; Threat to Destroy Property – Withdrawn, Diversion Granted on Possess Cannabis

January 29, 2026

Case: Serious Charges Withdrawn On Questionable Motivations of Ex-partner.

Our client was in a long term relationship which had ended. His ex-partner sought an IVO against him to gain advantage over him not laying claim for part of a property that was in the ex-partner’s name for which our client had been contributing payments too in cash. The ex-partner claimed our client was stalking her with a tracker that was found in her vehicle and made a threat to burn the property down. Police searched the house to serve the IVO on our client and found an air rifle, imitation firearm, small amount of cannabis in the garage.

Charges/ Ch1 (Stalking); Ch2 (Possess longarm rifle); Ch3 (Possess imitation firearm); Ch4 (Make threat to destroy property); Ch5 (Fail to securely store firearm); Ch6 (Posses drug of dependence)

Result/ Ch1 to 5 withdrawn: Diversion granted on Ch6, 3 months good behaviour and donation

Our lawyer produced footage of the ex-partner’s children playing with the imitation firearm and presented evidence that none of the weapon’s were not our clients. We also stated that the ex-partner had admitted in her statement that she had stalked our client for 4 years, as the tracker was given to him as a present, and she provided screenshots of the tracker on her own phone to justify to police she was being stalked. We argued that the credibility of the ex-partner is a central issue which led to a withdrawal of the most serious charges. The cannabis was found in a common area and while our client instructed that it was his ex-partner’s, he agreed to resolve on a Diversion to put the matter behind him.

Careless Driving and Drive in A Manner Causing Loss Of Traction – Acquitted at Contest

December 14, 2025

Case: Police Back A Losing Hoon Case, Face Massive Costs Order.

Our was riding a small registered pit bike on a street adjacent to a police station. He accidentally released his clutch too quickly causing his motorbike to lift the front wheel. As this happened a police car was exiting the vehicle yard and intercepted our client. The first thing our client said was it was an accident, the police officer responded that he did it deliberately.

Charges/ Ch1 (Careless Driving); Ch2 (Drive In A Manner Causing Loss Of Traction)

Result/ All charges dismissed at Contested Hearing, full acquittal, with costs awarded against police

Our client was represented by Younis Yehia of our firm. He had no prior criminal or driving history and was of good character. Despite this, the police called a “police expert” who was previously a motor mechanic to give an opinion that the it is impossible to accidentally lift the front tyre of the bike. Mr Yehia, who also knows a lot about the mechanical’s of cars and motorbiked cross-examined the police expert and found that the expert had not examined our client’s bike or ridden it. Instead he solely went by the description the police informant stated in his statement by way of observation. Furthermore there was no reason to disbelieve our client as an honest mistake. The magistrate acquitted our client and the police face a large costs order for a matter that should have been withdrawn.

Affray and Assault – Withdrawn

December 8, 2025

Case: Early Morning Trespass and Threats Leads to Affray Charges.

Our client and his house mate were charged with affray and assault after two drunken and unidentified men attended their front door at 2:00am in the morning. 

Charges/ Ch1 (Affray); Ch2, Ch3 (Unlawful Assault)

Result/ All charges withdrawn

The complainants made statements the next day after their wives told them to go to the police. Our lawyer pointed out inconsistencies in the statements given that the complainants admitted they were heavily intoxicated, as well as the fact that there were no members of the public present to justify the affray charge. In his interview, our client was clear, consistent and concise in his account of what happened in that one of the men threatened his house mate and threw the first punch. This was sufficient to raise self defence and unlawful trespass by the complainants as a defence.

Intentionally Cause Injury and Assault – Withdrawn

November 10, 2025

Case: Charged with Assault & Cause Injury With Identity In Issue.

Our client was charged with intentionally cause injury in circumstances where the complainant did not identify our client and evidence suggested another offender.

Charges/ Ch1 (Intentionally Cause Injury); Ch2 (Unlawful Assault)

Result/ All charges withdrawn

The complainant in this case had an extensive criminal history and described an incident that caused his injuries that was inconsistent with the incident our client was accused of. Further, there was no witness that identified our client. Our lawyer adjourned the matter to a Contested Hearing where prior to the Hearing police withdrew the charges.

Recklessly/Negligently Cause Serious Injury Withdrawn – Resolved on Dangerous Driving

November 5, 2025

Case: Office of Public Prosecutions Wastes Resources Prosecuting Father For Riding Accident.

Our client was riding with his child on a minibike a short distance to his house to go to the toilet. He was distracted momentarily talking to his child and collided with a parked trailer. The child was injured in the incident. 

Charges/ Ch1 (Recklessly Cause Serious Injury); Ch2 (Negligently Cause Serious Injury); Ch3 (Reckless Conduct Endangering Serious Injury); Ch4 (Drink Driving); Ch5 (Dangerous Driving); Ch6 (Careless Driving); Ch7 (Intentionally Cause Injury)

Result/ Ch 1 to 4, 6, 7 withdrawn; Ch5 Plead Guilty (Dangerous Driving): 12 month Community Corrections Order

At the committal hearing the Magistrate discharged our client on recklessly cause serious injury and the reckless conduct charge on submissions by our barrister. We also argued that the police had failed to prove that there was a serious injury. Ultimately we sought judicial input and the judge agreed with our position and encouraged parties to resolve on a lesser summary charge.

Exceed Speed over 45kph, Fail to Comply with s60 Notice – All Charges Withdrawn at Contested Hearing

August 29, 2025

Case: Highway Patrol Officer Misleads Client in Section 60 Rejection Notice.

Our client was served with a Section 60 Road Safety Act Notice requiring him to provide information about a driver who drove his vehicle at over 45kph the speed limit and was captured by a traffic camera. Our client nominated a driver which was rejected by the police officer having spoken to the nominated driver.

Charges/ Ch1 (Exceed speed by 45kph); Ch2 (Fail to comply with s60 Notice); Ch3 (Make misleading statement)

Result/ All charges withdrawn on submissions at Contested Hearing.

We reviewed the police brief and noted that the highway patrol officer did not speak to the nominated driver, instead he spoke with his brother. Despite that, he stated in our client’s rejection letter that he had spoken to the nominated driver “rejected” the nomination. Counsel for our client made submissions that these circumstances were not a valid rejection and ultimately the prosecution agreed to withdraw all charges.

Drug Driving 2nd Time – Adjourned Undertaking, Without Conviction

July 6, 2025

Case: Driver caught for drug driving 2 times in 1 month

Our was intercepted by a routine police booze bus on the Burwood Highway. She tested negative for any alcohol in her breath, however she tested positive on the roadside drug test.

Charges/ Ch1 (Drive with MDMA in oral fluid); Ch2 (Drive with methylamphetamine in oral fluid); Ch3 (Drive with MDMA in oral fluid, alternative charge)

Result/ 12 month good behaviour bond, 12 months license loss, $500 donation to the Court without conviction 

We negotiated with the Prosecution to roll up the charges to a single offence of drug driving and provided Court support letters and medical documents to the Magistrate, so that our client only received the minimum mandatory license loss.

Drug Trafficking – Withdrawn

July 6, 2025

Case: Drug trafficker caught after freeway crash

Our client was intercepted by Police after crashing on the Calder Freeway. Police found methylamphetamine on him at the time and later searched his property, where more drugs were found. The total amount of meth was found to weigh 49 grams. Our client also breached his corrections order for drug trafficking, 2 months prior to this incident.

Charges/ Ch1 (Traffick Meth); Ch2 (Possess Meth); Ch3 (Possess ecstasy); Ch4 (Possess Viagra); Ch5 (Drug driving (Meth); Ch6 (Drive whilst suspended); Ch7 (Careless driving); Ch8 (Deal with money suspected of being proceeds of crime.)

Result/ Ch1 (Traffick Meth) withdrawn; Plea Guilty Ch2-8: 12 months license loss, Released from prison after 156 time served with a corrections order variation for the previous offending.

We negotiated with the prosecution to withdraw the drug trafficking charge over several months. Our client was already on a Corrections Order for drug trafficking, so having drug trafficking withdrawn saved our client over 1 year in jail if he plead guilty to that charge.

Diversion for Drug Trafficking – Unlawful Direction To Provide Phone Pin

June 17, 2025

Case: Young Offender Granted Diversion for Trafficking Cannabis

Police executed a search warrant on our client’s home and found Cannabis. They arrested our client outside of the property and seized his phone requiring him to provide a Pin number or being charged with an offence for failing to assist. The phone contained SMS messages that indicating trafficking of Cannabis.

Charges/ Ch1 (Traffick Cannabis); Ch2 (Possess Cannabis); Ch3 (Deal with property reasonably susptected to be proceeds of crime); Ch4 (Dealing with proceeds of crime); Ch5 (Possess prohibited weapon)

Result/ Ch2, Ch4, Ch5 withdrawn. Diversion granted on Ch1 & Ch3.

Police initially refused to agree to a Diversion which would mean that our client escapes any criminal record. Our lawyer argued that the direction to provide a phone PIN was unlawful as our client’s phone was seized off warrant premises. As the evidence for trafficking rested solely on phone messages, the prosecution agreed to a Diversion given our client’s youth, lack of criminal history and mental health issues. The charge relating to a prohibited weapon was withdrawn as the objects were a toy and could not cause an injury.

 

Instagram Facebook-f X Linkedin