call-icon (03) 8600 9922

RESULTS

Dangerous Driving Causing Death – Not Guilty by Jury at Trial

May 6, 2026

Case: Young Driver Found Not Guilty by Jury for E-bike Rider’s Death.

Our client was driving home from work around midnight. He drove at speed through a green light at an intersection and struck a person riding an e-bike with no helmet, had methamphetamine in their system, and had gone through the red light.

Charges/ Ch1 (Culpable Driving Causing Death); Ch2 (Dangerous Driving Causing Death); Ch3 (Careless Driving); Ch4 (Dangerous Driving)

Result/ Not Guilty by Jury at trial.

Our lawyer offered a resolution on careless driving at the earliest stage of proceedings arguing that the speed our client was driving at was careless. At the Committal Hearing the Culpable Driving charge was withdrawn, and the Crown proceeded on Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Despite efforts to resolve the matter without going to trial, the Crown nonetheless proceeded with the charge and sought an immediate term of imprisonment.

At trial, our barrister argued the issue of causation – that it was the e-bike rider that caused his own death. The police did no work at all to establish the circumstances of the e-bike such as how fast it was travelling, the e-bike’s brand or the power of the motor. Evidence at trial also provided that the mortality of cyclists not wearing helmets is common even if our client had drove at the speed limit. The Jury duly found our client not guilty.

Traffick Large Commercial Quantity of Drugs, Deal with Proceeds of Crime – 28 Charges Withdrawn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Case: Serious Drug Offences Withdrawn on Partner Living with Co-Accused.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Result/ All charges withdrawn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 Forensic evidence, coupled with our client’s good character supported this and all charges were withdrawn.

Stalking; Possess Rifle, Imitation Firearm; Threat to Destroy Property – Withdrawn, Diversion Granted on Possess Cannabis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Case: Serious Charges Withdrawn On Questionable Motivations of Ex-partner.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.

Instagram Facebook-f X Linkedin