RESULTS

Dealing with Proceeds of Crime / Withdrawn

Case: Proceeds of Crime Charges Withdrawn Against Partner of Suspect.

Our client is married to a person charged with drug trafficking and proceeds of crime charges. Police charged our client on the basis of money and property she had that they alleged were proceeds of crime.

Charges/ Ch1, 2, 3 (Knowingly Dealing with Proceeds of Crime); Ch4, 5, 6 (Recklessly Dealing with Proceeds of Crime); Ch7, 8, 9 (Dealing with Property Suspected to be Proceeds of Crime)

Result/ All Charges Withdrawn

Our view was that our client was charged to apply pressure on our client’s partner to plead guilty. We drafted an application for discontinuance on all charges on the basis that police could not prove that a) the goods and money were proceeds of crime and b) that our client either knew or was reckless to the fact that the property was proceeds of crime. A solicitor also attended our client’s police interview where they told her she was an “import” and had no clue what her husband was up to. This statement assisted our client’s case in establishing that she had no knowledge. We provided substantial material showing the provenance of the money in our client’s bank account and what she knew of her husband’s business and income earning activities at the time she moved in with him after they were married. Prosecution advised their intention to withdraw all charges.

Culpable Driving Negotiated to Careless Driving / $600 Fine Without Conviction

Case: False Statement By Traffic Controller Leads To Withdrawal of Culpable Driving Charges.

Our client was driving through a amber traffic light when he struck a cyclist who went through a red pedestrian crossing. The cyclist died and was found to have alcohol and drugs in his system. Police alleged that our client was speeding at over 80kmph in a 40kmph work zone. Our client denied there were any 40kph signs out. Despite police not doing their job and conducting a video walk through after the accident, they relied on a traffic controller statement that said the signs were put out and checked.

Charges/ Ch1 (Culpable Driving); Ch2 (Dangerous Driving Causing Death); Ch3 (Reckless Conduct Endangering Life); Ch4 (Reckless Conduct Endangering Serious Injury); Ch5 (Careless Driving)

Result/ Withdrawn: Ch1, 2, 3, 4

Plea Guilty: Ch5 (Careless Driving) $600 fine without conviction, no loss of licence

The prosecutor refused to believe that our client was telling the truth that no road works signs were out and despite police not having done their job. Our lawyer forensically reviewed all the CCTV footage available and found some footage that showed that there were no signs in place where the traffic management plan said they should be. The prosecutor still refused to withdraw the serious charges. We compelled the traffic controller to attend court and cross examine him on the signage. Our lawyer found more footage showing the workers putting the signs out after the accident occurred. The prosecutor had to concede that their witness had lied and agreed to resolve the case on careless driving. Our client is now considering a civil claim against the traffic control company.

Driving Whilst Disqualified / Withdrawn

Case: Client contests Driving Whilst Disqualified charge on Defence of honest reasonable belief.

Our client attended VicRoads to have his driver licence reissued after he was disqualified until he provided a medical report. He paid the fee and was told by the staff member that his licence will be updated on the day. Our client was intercepted by police the next morning at 2am and informed that he was disqualified from driving.

Charges/ Ch1 (driving whilst disqualified)

Result/ Charge Withdrawn

The prosecutor initially refused to withdraw the charge even though our client had the defence of honest and reasonable belief that he was licensed at the time of driving. We advised our client to take the matter to a Contested Hearing. Prior to the Hearing, a new prosecutor contacted our lawyer and offered to withdraw the charge.

Trafficking Withdrawn / $800 fine With Conviction for over 40 grams of drugs

Case: Routine traffic intercept locates traffickable amount of drugs.

Our client was stopped by police whilst crossing the street in the eastern suburbs. Police officers made observations of our client possibly being drug affected and was then searched under provisions of the Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act. Police seized 4 ziplock bags containing over 44 grams of methylamphetamine and 40 xanax pills along with over $3,000 in cash. Our client made a no comment interview.

Charges/ Ch1 (Traffick Drug of Dependence); Ch2 (possess Methylamphetamine); Ch3 (Possess drug of dependence); Ch4  (Deal with cash suspected to be proceeds of crime)

Result/ Withdrawn: Charge 1 (trafficking), 3 (possess drug of Dependence) 

Plea Guilty: Ch4 (Possession of over 40 grams of Methylamphetamine); Ch4 (Deal with cash suspected to be proceeds of crime): With Conviction fined $800

Our lawyer negotiated to resolve the matter principally on a possession charge as there was no evidence that our client engaged in any sales or transactions with respect to the drugs. Matter proceeded as a sentence indication whilst our client was in custody for other matters and a Magistrate agreed that in all the circumstances, a fine with conviction was appropriate. 

Recklessly Cause Injury / Withdrawn

Case: Argument between sisters leads to police charges.

Our client was charged following an argument with her sister about cheating with her ex-partner. This led to a situation with pushing and shoving and an allegation of choking. Our client made admissions in relation to the incident.

Charges/ Ch1(recklessly cause injury), Ch2(Unlawful Assault)

Result/ All charges withdrawn

Our lawyer argued that our client’s admission was inadmissible due to it being procured by a Victoria Police trial of using body worn camera recordings of a complainant’s interview. Our lawyer found out that to be admissible, the recording needed to have been backed up by a written statement by the complainant. In this case the complainant was unwilling to make a statement against her sister. Without our client’s admissions, police agreed to withdraw all charges.

ATO Fraud, Commercial Trafficking Withdrawn / Community Corrections Order Without Conviction

Case: ATO fraud leads to commercial trafficking charges.

Our client’s house was raided. He lived with 4 other people. Police were looking for documents relating to false GST returns and found a small amount of drugs in his room and a commercial amount of drugs in the garage.

Charges/ Ch1, 2, 17, 22 (Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime); Ch3 (Traffick commercial quantity of drugs); Ch4 (traffic drug of dependence); Ch5, 6, 7 (Possess drug of dependence); Ch8, 11, 20, 25 (Negligently deal with proceeds of crime); Ch9,, 13, 18, 23 (Obtaining property by deception); Ch10, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24 (Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime); Ch12, 21, 26 (Deal with property suspected to be proceeds of crime)

Result/ Withdrawn: Charge 3 (commercial trafficking), 5, 7 (possess drugs) ; Ch1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (Proceeds of Crime)

Plea Guilty: Ch4 (trafficking by weight); Ch6 (possess methamphetamine): Community Corrections Order, 12 Months, without conviction

Our lawyer negotiated to resolve the matter principally on trafficking simpliciter on the basis that there was no evidence of actual trafficking; and the Methampetamine found in our client’s room. At our client’s plea it was argued that our client was a first time offender and a conviction would affect his ability to travel and work.

Unlawful Assault / Acquitted At Contested Hearing

Case: road rage allegation – Client acquitted at contested hearing.

Our client was victim of a truck driver who dangerously pushed our client into oncoming traffic by failing to give way. Our client deployed his horn and flashed his lights at the truck driver. Further up the road the lights turned red and all traffic stopped. The truck driver got out of his truck and approached our client with a metal bar. On seeing this our client who is 6 foot and big build and got out of his car. The truck driver took one look at our client and retreated with our client yelling that he will report the truck driver to his employer. The truck driver later attended police with a ripped shirt and alleged our client attempted to hit him while seated in the front of his vehicle.

Charges/ Ch1 (Unlawful Assault)

Result/ Acquitted at Contested Hearing, costs awarded against police.

Our lawyer placed the police on notice that their case was weak, that the truck driver had a motive to lie, had a criminal history for violence offences and that he was the aggressor. Despite the issues of credibility, the prosecution refused to withdraw the charges on the basis that our client would not seek costs against them. Our lawyer gathered further evidence on the height of the truck window to raise an impossibility defence which established that our client, even at 6 foot tall, could not have punched the truck driver nor rip his shirt. The magistrate agreed with our arguments, believed our client’s evidence in the witness box and acquitted him. This case is an example of how police will often defend aggressors and vigilantes over victims of crime. They do so at expense of the tax payer who foots the bill for paying the legal costs for weak police cases and underserving complainants attempting to use the criminal justice system for an ulterior purpose.

Trafficking Large Commercial Quantity Of Drug Of Dependence / Bail Granted

Case: Bail granted for Middle Aged man charged with trafficking large commercial quantity of drugs & firearms.

Our client’s house was raided and large commercial quantity of drugs was allegedly found along with two loaded hand guns and a shotgun. This quantity makes bail unlikely given the almost certain prospects of a term of imprisonment if found guilty. Client had to show exceptional circumstances why bail should be granted.

Charges/ Ch1 (trafficking of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine); Ch2 (trafficking of a large commercial quantity of heroin); Ch3 (trafficking of a large commercial quantity of 1,4B); Ch4 (Prohibited person possess firearm x3); Ch5 (trafficking firearms); Ch6 (Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime being an unknown amount of cash)

Result/ Bail Granted – exceptional circumstances found

Our lawyer advised client that his prospects of a successful bail application would depend on the risk of further offending being mitigated along with addressing possible flight risks due to extraneous identity documents also being located at the residence of our client. Our client allowed our office to make a referral to our list of preferred treatment providers which included a luxurious private residential rehabilitation facility. Kings Counsel was engaged to appear on behalf of our client in a well prepared bail application and was able to succesfully convince a Magistrate that exceptional circumstances had been met & that the unacceptable risk which our client posed could be ameliorated by the conditions proposed by our legal team. 

Reckless Conduct Endangering Life / Jail Avoided

Case: taking the law into your own hands. Vigilante Accused of Ramming Truck Into vehicle of offender harassing his female partner.

Our client received a call from his partner who was frantic as she explained that a known offender was chasing her vehicle and she was unable to get away despite having contacted police. It was alleged that our client drove a truck in a reckless manner rushing to the aid of his partner and had located them and smashed his truck into the known offenders vehicle. It was further alleged that our client had armed himself with a pole and had emerged from his truck striking the the known offender who had to emerge from the passenger side due to the extensive damage to the vehicle he was in.

Charges/ Ch1 (Reckless Conduct Endangering Life); Ch2 (Reckless Conduct Endangering Serious Injury); Ch3 (dangerous driving); Ch4 (Careless driving), Charge 5 (Unlawful Assault Using A 4.5 Tonne Truck And Metal Pole); Ch6 (Unlawful assault)

Result/ Withdrawn: Ch1, 2, 3, 5, 6 

Plea Guilty: Ch4: $800 fine without conviction, no interference with licence

Our client contacted one of our lawyers immediately after the incident and accordingly declined an interview with police as it was intended for him to be interviewed as a suspect and not a witness. He was later charged with 6 offences however police failed to investigate the harassment of the known offender and our lawyer managed to apply the necessary pressure on the police Informant and police prosecutors raising the failure of the police Informant to properly investigate the circumstances of the incident. Our lawyer obtained the 000 call which our client’s partner made and ensured that the police Informant conducted further investigation which lead to the known assailant also being charged. 

Driving Whilst Disqualified / Withdrawn

Case: Court heard the matter in absence of our client and failed to provide notice to accused lead to Withdrawal of Charge.

Our client had contested an infringement notice for exceeding the speed limit and was self-representing himself. Unfortunately he had the Court dates mixed up and had missed a Court date. The Court proceeded to hear his matter in his absence and disqualified him from driving for 3 months. No advice or notice with respect to the licence disqualification was communicated by the Court and our client was subsequently intercepted driving whilst disqualified.

Charges/ Ch1 (driving whilst disqualified)

Result/ charge withdrawn

The charge required that police prove our client had been aware of the suspension. However our lawyer submitted that our client had not been provided with any information with regard to the Court hearing his matter in his absence and therefore was unaware of the licence disqualification. Prosecution agreed to withdraw the charge as the defence of honest & reasonable mistake could not be refuted as the notice of order from the Court hearing the previous matter confirmed that there was no appearance from our client and there was no evidence that the Court had ever sent our client the result of the case which was heard in his absence.