Professional Experience

Jelena regularly appears in a broad range of criminal and traffic cases, including:

  • Bail applications to the Local, District, and Supreme Courts of New South Wales,
  • Sentencing proceedings in the Local and District Courts of New South Wales,
  • Complex Local Court defended hearing,
  • Domestic violence matters (including apprehended violence orders),
  • Serious sexual violence matters,
  • White collar crimes,
  • Complex drug supply and possession crimes,
  • Applications pursuant to s 14 and 19 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (formerly known as s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990),
  • All manner of appeals, including licence appeals in the Local Court, severity and conviction appeals in the District Court, and
  • Indictable matters

Background

In her time practising as a solicitor, Jelena has extensive experience independently running defended hearings, sentences, licence appeals, and District Court severity appeals. Jelena has experience handling a wide variety of criminal matters, including but not limited to, complex domestic violence matters, resist/assault officer matters, sexual offences, negligent driving matters, drink and drug driving matters, and drug matters. Jelena also has experience briefing counsel for trial and committal sentence matters for more serious offences, such as sexual intercourse without consent.

Jelena is motivated by helping others, especially when they are going through difficult times. She is there to support clients gain access to justice and rehabilitation. Jelena is a firm believer that everyone deserves the right to fair legal representation, no matter what the circumstances are. She is committed to ensuring that every client has their fair day in court.

Outside of work, Jelena enjoys spending quality time with family and friends, going to the beach, and travelling. She also has a passion for beauty and fashion and enjoys content creation in this space.

Results

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with 9 counts of larceny (shoplifting).

    Larceny offences are treated seriously by the Courts and each count carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a $5,500 fine in the Local Court. Multiple dishonesty offences can place a person at significant risk of conviction and serious long-term consequences.

    Our client was a 20-year-old woman employed as a veterinary nurse with no prior criminal history. She was deeply concerned that criminal convictions would jeopardise both her current employment and future career opportunities.

    During consultations with Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric, the client disclosed significant personal issues, including regular use of benzodiazepines and other illicit drugs, including use prior to the offending.

    Recognising that rehabilitation was critical, Jelena Dobric assisted the client to access support and treatment.

    This preparation included:

    • Referral for rehabilitation support
    • A letter of instruction to a psychiatrist
    • Material for a comprehensive psychiatric report
    • Preparation for a potential section 14 mental health application
    • Further subjective material for sentence

    Although the Court did not ultimately grant the section 14 application, the extensive preparation significantly strengthened the client’s position.

    Appearing before Magistrate P Thompson at Campbelltown Local Court, Jelena Dobric made detailed submissions focusing on the client’s youth, lack of record, employment, rehabilitation efforts, and future prospects.

    The Court was persuaded to deal with the client under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), now known as a Conditional Release Order without conviction.

    As a result:

    • No criminal convictions were recorded for all 9 charges
    • The client protected her career and future employment prospects
    • The matter was resolved without a criminal record

    Why this result matters: Multiple shoplifting charges often place clients at serious risk of conviction. Early intervention, rehabilitation, and strong advocacy can dramatically change the outcome.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with stalk or intimidate with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm (domestic violence related) following an argument at the family home involving her step-mother.

    This offence is treated seriously by the Courts and can result in criminal convictions, fines, community-based orders, and significant reputational consequences. Where offending occurs in the family home and in a domestic context, the matter is regarded more seriously.

    The allegation involved a verbal threat which had been recorded.

    Our client was a hardworking 18-year-old woman with a history of gainful employment despite her young age. She had no prior criminal record and was living in a difficult and challenging home environment at the time.

    The client instructed that a plea of guilty should be entered, demonstrating remorse and accepting responsibility for the incident.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric carefully prepared the matter for sentence by obtaining:

    • Character references
    • A letter of apology
    • Material addressing the difficult home circumstances
    • Evidence of the client’s employment and future prospects

    Appearing before Magistrate Van Zuylen at Blacktown Local Court, Jelena Dobric made detailed and persuasive submissions seeking leniency and a non-conviction outcome.

    The Court dealt with the matter pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), meaning the charge was dismissed and no conviction was recorded.

    In addition, a final ADVO was made for a reduced period of 12 months, rather than the standard 2 years.

    As a result:

    • The charge was dismissed
    • No criminal conviction was recorded
    • The ADVO term was significantly reduced

    Why this result matters: Early pleas of guilty, strong subjective material, and careful advocacy can lead to outstanding outcomes even in domestic violence related matters.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (domestic violence related).

    This offence is treated seriously by the Courts and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment in the District Court, or 2 years imprisonment and/or a $5,500 fine in the Local Court.

    Police alleged the offence occurred in the home during an argument between our client and her partner. It was alleged that both parties had been heavily drinking when a dispute arose concerning relationship issues, during which our client bit the complainant on the hand, breaking the skin and drawing blood.

    The fact that the offence was alleged to have occurred in a domestic setting was regarded as an aggravating factor.

    Our client was a 37-year-old woman with a history of gainful employment who was at risk of losing her job if convicted.

    She entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, demonstrating remorse and allowing the matter to proceed efficiently.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric acted quickly to improve the client’s position by:

    • Making representations to police to amend the police facts sheet
    • Encouraging the client to engage with a mental health professional
    • Assisting with rehabilitation steps
    • Preparing strong subjective material for sentence

    Appearing before Magistrate B van Zuylen at Penrith Local Court, Jelena Dobric made persuasive submissions highlighting the client’s remorse, rehabilitation, employment history, and the disproportionate impact a conviction would have.

    The Court dealt with the matter under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), now known as a Conditional Release Order without conviction.

    In addition, Jelena Dobric successfully negotiated with police for a reduced final ADVO term of 6 months, rather than the standard 2 years.

    As a result:

    • No criminal conviction was recorded
    • The client avoided a criminal record
    • The ADVO term was significantly reduced
    • Employment prospects were protected

    Why this result matters: Domestic violence related offences are serious matters. Early legal advice, rehabilitation steps, and strong advocacy can substantially improve the final outcome.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with possession of a prohibited drug, namely 1.63 grams of cocaine.

    Possession of cocaine is a serious offence under New South Wales law and carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $2,200.

    A conviction for a drug offence can have serious consequences for employment, professional registration, travel, and reputation. In this matter, our client was a 50-year-old mother employed by the Department of Education and was deeply concerned about the impact a criminal conviction would have on her career.

    The client made full admissions to police and instructed that a plea of guilty should be entered. The plea was entered at the earliest opportunity, entitling the client to full sentencing discount for the plea.

    During conferences with Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric, the client disclosed a history of significant personal hardship.

    This included:

    • Leaving an abusive marriage
    • Overcoming alcoholism
    • Recovering from breast cancer
    • The circumstances in which cocaine use commenced

    Jelena Dobric assisted the client in accessing rehabilitation support and prepared extensive subjective material for the Court.

    That material included evidence of:

    • Prior good character
    • Stable employment
    • Insight and remorse
    • Rehabilitation efforts
    • Significant adversity overcome by the client

    Appearing before Magistrate Williams at Penrith Local Court, Jelena Dobric made comprehensive submissions seeking that the Court exercise leniency and avoid recording a conviction.

    The Court dealt with the matter under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), now known as a Conditional Release Order without conviction.

    As a result:

    • No criminal conviction was recorded
    • The client protected her employment and future prospects
    • The matter was resolved without the burden of a criminal record

    Why this result matters: Even where guilt is admitted, strong subjective preparation and evidence of hardship, rehabilitation, and good character can lead to a no-conviction outcome.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property.

    This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a $2,200 fine in the Local Court, or 5 years imprisonment in the District Court.

    Police alleged our client attended a petrol station, picked up an empty large chlorine drum, and used it to smash windows at the premises, causing damage.

    The incident was described as unprovoked and random. Following the offence, our client was conveyed to hospital after a suspected mental health episode.

    Our client was a 34-year-old husband and father with a criminal history who sought legal assistance to pursue a treatment-based outcome rather than punishment.

    He instructed Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric to make an application under section 14 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

    Jelena Dobric carefully advised the client regarding the process and prepared the matter thoroughly. This included:

    • Drafting a detailed letter of instruction to a mental health professional
    • Gathering relevant medical records
    • Obtaining expert evidence regarding diagnosis and treatment
    • Preparing submissions addressing the connection between the offending and mental health

    Appearing before Magistrate J Wong at Penrith Local Court, Jelena Dobric made persuasive submissions seeking dismissal of the charge and a therapeutic response.

    The Court accepted the application and dismissed the offence under section 14(1)(a) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

    As a result:

    • The charge was dismissed
    • No conviction was recorded
    • The client was able to focus on treatment and recovery

    Why this result matters: Where offending is linked to mental health issues, early legal advice and strong expert evidence can lead to treatment-focused outcomes rather than criminal punishment.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with common assault following allegations that he assaulted an Uber driver.

    Common assault is an offence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a $5,500 fine. Even where no serious injury is alleged, a conviction can have major consequences for employment, travel, reputation, and future opportunities.

    Our client was a 61-year-old man who strongly maintained his innocence from the very first consultation. He instructed that he had not committed the offence and wished to defend the matter.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric carefully reviewed the prosecution brief and obtained detailed instructions from the client.

    During that review, Jelena Dobric identified significant issues in the prosecution case, including:

    • Major discrepancies between the complainant’s description of the alleged offender and the client’s actual physical appearance
    • Inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement to police and the statement of the Officer in Charge
    • Reliability issues affecting the prosecution evidence

    Given those weaknesses, the matter proceeded to a defended hearing.

    At the hearing before Magistrate P Thompson at Campbelltown Local Court, Jelena Dobric rigorously cross-examined both the complainant and the investigating police officer.

    The inconsistencies in the evidence were fully explored in Court.

    After hearing all of the evidence, the Magistrate found the client not guilty.

    As a result:

    • The charge was dismissed
    • No conviction was recorded
    • The client left Court without a criminal record

    Why this result matters: Defended hearings can be won where evidence is unreliable or inconsistent. Thorough preparation and strong cross-examination can be decisive in securing an acquittal.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with drive with middle range PCA – first offence after returning a reading of 0.085 following a random breath test.

    A reading of 0.085 falls within the middle-range category and is treated seriously by the Courts.

    This offence carries a maximum penalty of 9 months imprisonment and/or a fine of $2,200.

    If convicted, the offence ordinarily carries:

    • Without interlock order: automatic disqualification of 12 months or minimum 6 months
    • With interlock order: automatic disqualification of 6 months or minimum 3 months, plus a mandatory 12-month interlock program

    Our client was a 31-year-old publican from the Southern Highlands with no prior criminal history and a good traffic record.

    Police immediately suspended his licence after the offence. By the time the matter came before the Court, he had already spent nearly 2 months unable to drive.

    Our client also had a genuine need for a licence, as the nearest public transport option was approximately 40 minutes’ walk from his home.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric carefully prepared the matter for sentence by obtaining:

    • Character references
    • A letter of apology
    • Proof of completion of the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP)
    • Evidence of licence need and low risk of reoffending

    Appearing before Magistrate D Degnan at Moss Vale Local Court, Jelena Dobric made detailed submissions emphasising the client’s prior good record, hardship already suffered, need for a licence, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

    The Court dealt with the offence under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), now a Conditional Release Order without conviction.

    As a result:

    • No conviction was recorded
    • No licence disqualification was imposed
    • The client was able to continue driving and working

    Why this result matters: Drink driving charges can carry major licence consequences. In the right circumstances, strong preparation and persuasive advocacy can lead to outcomes that preserve both licence and livelihood.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client successfully appealed a Local Court sentence after being convicted of drive with illicit drug present in oral fluid, blood or urine – first offence.

    The client had originally pleaded guilty in the Local Court, where he was convicted, fined $750, and disqualified from driving for the minimum period of 3 months.

    This offence carries a maximum penalty of $2,200, together with an automatic licence disqualification period of 6 months or a minimum disqualification period of 3 months.

    Police alleged the client tested positive to methylamphetamine and the prosecution facts also referred to him travelling at speed. The client also had a poor traffic record, which created further challenges on appeal.

    Despite those difficulties, our client had many positive features. He was a 27-year-old Aboriginal man, had no prior criminal history, had a history of gainful employment as a registered nurse, and was undertaking further university studies with the goal of becoming a medical doctor.

    A criminal conviction had the potential to significantly affect future employment and registration opportunities in the medical field.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric prepared the appeal thoroughly by obtaining updated subjective material and evidence of rehabilitation.

    This included proof of engagement with:

    • The SMART Recovery Program
    • Community-based drug support programs
    • Further material demonstrating insight and rehabilitation prospects

    Jelena Dobric also prepared detailed written submissions and appeared in the District Court to make further oral submissions on the client’s behalf.

    After considering the fresh material and submissions, Judge W Fitzsimmons at Downing Centre District Court allowed the appeal.

    The Court dealt with the matter under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), now known as a Conditional Release Order without conviction.

    As a result:

    • No conviction was recorded
    • No licence disqualification applied
    • The client avoided a criminal record that could have impacted future medical career opportunities

    Why this result matters: Appeals can be powerful opportunities to present fresh rehabilitation evidence and correct harsh outcomes. In this matter, a conviction was overturned and the client’s future was protected.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with common assault (domestic violence related) following allegations made by his wife.

    Common assault is an offence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,500 in the Local Court.

    Police alleged that our client intentionally or recklessly punched and pushed the complainant. These allegations were firmly denied.

    Our client was a 50-year-old married man with no prior criminal history. Importantly, at the time the allegations were said to have occurred, our client was in fact the Person in Need of Protection (PINOP) under an existing Apprehended Domestic Violence Order taken out by police for his protection from the complainant.

    The complainant also had a criminal history, including matters involving domestic violence.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric obtained detailed instructions from the client, carefully reviewed the full brief of evidence, and advised that the matter should be defended.

    Jelena Dobric then thoroughly prepared the case for hearing, including analysing inconsistencies in the evidence and preparing cross-examination.

    At the defended hearing before Magistrate L Robinson at Windsor Local Court, Jelena Dobric conducted cross-examination and challenged the prosecution evidence.

    Following the hearing and evidence given in Court, the Magistrate found our client not guilty.

    The associated ADVO was also dismissed.

    Why this result matters: Domestic violence allegations can have serious legal and personal consequences. Thorough preparation and effective advocacy at hearing can be decisive in achieving a full acquittal.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with threaten to distribute intimate image without consent (domestic violence related), a serious offence under New South Wales law.

    This offence is treated seriously by the Courts and carries a maximum penalty in the Local Court of 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,500, or 3 years imprisonment and/or an $11,000 fine in the District Court.

    The allegation arose in unusual personal circumstances and was said to have occurred in a domestic context. Our client was a 72-year-old woman with a history of gainful employment in the NDIS sector, strong ties to the Southern Highlands community, and no prior criminal record.

    She was deeply concerned about the impact a criminal conviction would have on her reputation, standing in the community, and future opportunities.

    When our client engaged Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric, she was provided with clear and realistic advice regarding the seriousness of the charge and the possibility of a conviction. At the same time, Jelena Dobric advised that every effort would be made to prepare the strongest possible case for leniency.

    To place the client in the best possible position before sentence, Jelena Dobric assisted in preparing:

    • A detailed affidavit
    • Character references
    • A letter of remorse
    • Material outlining the client’s background and prior good character

    Appearing before Magistrate D Degnan at Moss Vale Local Court, Jelena Dobric made detailed submissions seeking that the Court deal with the offence without recording a conviction.

    After considering the material and submissions, the Court dealt with the offence under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), now known as a Conditional Release Order without conviction.

    As a result, no criminal conviction was recorded.

    Why this result matters: Even serious domestic violence related charges can, in the right circumstances, be dealt with without conviction where strong preparation, remorse, and persuasive advocacy are presented to the Court.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court facing multiple serious criminal charges arising from a road rage incident, including:

    • Drive recklessly, furiously, or speed or manner dangerous – first offence
    • Affray
    • Intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property
    • Possess prohibited drug

    Police alleged our client became involved in a dangerous confrontation with another driver and was captured engaging in reckless behaviour on the road. The allegations included brake-checking, travelling at speeds of up to 160km/h, proceeding through red traffic lights, and later exiting his vehicle to become involved in a public physical altercation with the other driver. Police further alleged that property belonging to the other driver was damaged and that our client was in possession of cannabis.

    These were extremely serious allegations.

    The offence of drive manner dangerous carries a maximum penalty of 9 months imprisonment and ordinarily carries an automatic licence disqualification period of 3 years, unless reduced by the Court.

    The offence of affray carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment in the District Court, reflecting the seriousness with which public violence is treated.

    Our client was only 19 years old, employed full-time as a second-year carpentry apprentice, with no prior criminal history, no prior traffic infringements, and strong ties to the community. He relied heavily on his licence for employment and future career progression.

    The prosecution case was overwhelming, with evidence supporting the offences. In those circumstances, guilty pleas were appropriate and the focus shifted to avoiding custody and minimising licence consequences.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric acted quickly to prepare the matter thoroughly for sentence.

    This preparation included:

    • Character references, including a reference from the client’s employer
    • A detailed letter of remorse
    • Advice to complete the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP)
    • Material demonstrating employment needs, youth, and rehabilitation prospects

    Jelena Dobric made detailed submissions emphasising the client’s young age, previously clean history, strong work ethic, community support, low risk assessment by Community Corrections, and genuine prospects of rehabilitation.

    After considering all of the evidence, the Court imposed the following outcomes:

    • Drive manner dangerous: 12-month supervised Community Correction Order (CCO) with the automatic 3-year disqualification reduced to the minimum 12 months
    • Affray: 12-month supervised Community Correction Order (CCO)
    • Possess prohibited drug: dismissed under section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
    • Destroy or damage property: reduced fine of $500

    Most importantly, our client avoided any term of imprisonment.

    Why this result matters: This was a serious road rage matter involving dangerous driving and public violence. Through early preparation, rehabilitation steps, and strong advocacy, our client avoided jail, significantly reduced his licence disqualification, and was given the opportunity to rehabilitate in the community.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with driving whilst licence suspended – first offence after police alleged he drove while his licence was suspended due to exceeding his demerit points.

    Driving whilst suspended is a serious traffic offence in New South Wales. It can attract substantial fines, further licence consequences, and a criminal conviction. A conviction for this type of offence can also have significant employment implications, particularly for clients working in trusted or regulated positions.

    In this matter, our client was employed full-time with NSW Health, had four dependants, and was going through an extremely difficult and stressful period in his life at the time of the offence.

    He was moving between homes, going through a divorce, and had not updated his address details with Service NSW. At the same time, he was in the process of having an annulment application heard in relation to earlier traffic matters that had originally led to the suspension.

    As a result, there was genuine confusion and misunderstanding regarding the status of his licence and the effect of the separate court proceedings.

    The prosecution case was strong and the matter was unable to proceed to a defended hearing. In those circumstances, the focus became securing the best possible sentence and avoiding a conviction.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric carefully prepared extensive subjective material for the Court, including:

    • Character references
    • A letter of remorse
    • Evidence regarding the client’s family responsibilities
    • Material explaining the stressful circumstances surrounding the offence

    Appearing on the client’s behalf, Jelena Dobric made compelling submissions emphasising the client’s early plea of guilty, limited criminal history, remorse, low risk of reoffending, strong work history, and the unusual circumstances that gave rise to the offence.

    The Court accepted those submissions and imposed a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of 12 months.

    As a result, no conviction was recorded, protecting the client’s employment with NSW Health and allowing him to continue supporting his family.

    Why this result matters: Even where a prosecution case is strong, detailed preparation and persuasive advocacy can result in a no-conviction outcome. Courts often take into account genuine confusion, personal hardship, remorse, and otherwise good character when determining sentence.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client appeared before the Court charged with common assault after police alleged he assaulted a security officer at an outdoor concert.

    Common assault is an offence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. Although often considered a lower-level assault offence, a conviction can still have serious consequences including impacts on employment, professional opportunities, travel, and personal reputation.

    In this matter, our client was employed full-time, had no prior criminal history, and had five dependants who relied upon him. He was particularly concerned that a criminal conviction could place his employment in jeopardy and affect those who depended on his income.

    The matter was unable to proceed to a defended hearing due to the strength of the prosecution case, which included admissions made by the client to police. In those circumstances, the focus shifted to achieving the best possible sentencing outcome and avoiding a conviction.

    Lamont Law solicitor Jelena Dobric carefully prepared extensive subjective material to place the client in the strongest possible position before sentence.

    This included:

    • Character references attesting to the client’s good character and work ethic
    • A letter of remorse demonstrating insight into the offending
    • A mental health care plan
    • Referral to a psychologist for ongoing support and treatment

    Appearing on the client’s behalf, Jelena Dobric made detailed submissions highlighting the client’s early plea of guilty, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, age, low risk of reoffending, and strong prospects of rehabilitation.

    After considering the evidence and submissions, the Court imposed a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of 18 months.

    As a result, no conviction was recorded, protecting the client’s employment and allowing him to continue supporting his dependants.

    Why this result matters: Even where the prosecution case is strong, careful preparation of subjective material and effective advocacy can lead to a no-conviction outcome that protects a client’s future.

    This case result was dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

  • Our client was a 37 year old woman charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm domestic violence related. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment in the District Court or 2 years imprisonment and/or a $5,500 fine in the Local Court.  The victim in the matter was her partner. The offence took place in the home, which aggravated the offence. Both our client and the victim had been heavily drinking, at which point an argument occurred about relationship issues. Our client bit the victim on his hand, causing skin to break and blood to be drawn. Our client entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, which indicated her remorse. Jelena assisted our client by making representations to NSW police to seek an amendment to the police facts sheet. Jelena also helped our client gain access to rehabilitation, by encouraging her to speak with a mental health care professional. Our client had a history of gainful employment and was at risk of having her employment terminated if convicted. As a result of successfully preparing subjective material and making persuasive submissions on behalf of our client, Jelena was able to persuade the Magistrate to deal with our client under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), discharging our client into a Conditional Release Order without a criminal conviction recorded. Jelena also negotiated with NSW police to seek a shorter final ADVO term of 6 months as opposed to the standard 2 years.

  • Our client was a 50 year old mother who found herself charged with possession of a prohibited drug (cocaine). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $2,200. Our client was employed by the Department of Education and had concerns about the impact of a criminal conviction. As our client made full admissions to NSW police to possessing the prohibited drug, she instructed Jelena to plead guilty to the offence. The plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity, affording our client a discount upon sentence. In consulting with Jelena, our client disclosed that she had been through significant hardship, having left an abusive marriage, overcome alcoholism, and overcome breast cancer. Our client disclosed the circumstances in which she began using cocaine. Jelena was able to help our client gain access to rehabilitation and to prepare strong subjective material to assist sentence. In Court, Jelena was able to demonstrate a strong subjective case by making comprehensive submissions on our client’s behalf. The Magistrate dealt with our client under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), discharging our client into a Conditional Release Order without a criminal conviction recorded.

  • Our client was a 34 year old father and husband with a criminal history. He was charged with one count of intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or a $2,200 fine in the Local Court or 5 years imprisonment in the District Court. Our client had attended upon a petrol station and picked up an empty large drum of chlorine, smashing the windows of the petrol station and causing damage. It was a completely unprovoked and random offence. Following this offence, our client was conveyed to hospital after a suspected mental health episode. Our client came to us instructing he wanted to make a section 14 application under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). Jelena consulted with the client and advised him of the next steps, which involved preparing a letter of instruction to a mental health professional and gathering relevant medical paperwork. Jelena successfully prepared all the relevant material and made persuasive submissions on our client’s behalf. The Magistrate allowed the section 14 application and the offence was dismissed under section 14(1)(a) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

  • Our client was a 72-year-old woman with a long history of gainful employment in the NDIS sector and strong, well-established ties to her local community in the Southern Highlands. She had lived an otherwise law-abiding life and had no prior criminal history.

    She was charged with one count of threatening to distribute an intimate image without consent, a domestic violence-related offence under New South Wales law. The allegation arose in highly unusual and emotionally charged circumstances, which were markedly different from the typical fact patterns seen in image-based abuse matters. Importantly, there was no evidence that any image had been distributed, and the alleged threat occurred in a context that did not involve coercive control or ongoing harassment.

    Despite these circumstances, the offence itself is treated seriously by the courts. It carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,500 if dealt with in the Local Court, or up to three years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $11,000 if dealt with in the District Court. Given the domestic violence classification, our client was understandably distressed about the potential consequences and the lasting impact a criminal conviction could have on her personal reputation, professional standing, and community involvement.

    Upon engaging Jelena, our client received clear and candid advice about the seriousness of the charge and the real risk that a conviction could be recorded. Jelena took the time to explain the sentencing process, the relevant legal principles, and the options available. While being transparent about the risks, Jelena assured the client that her case would be carefully prepared and presented to ensure the court had a full and accurate understanding of both the offence and the client’s personal circumstances.

    Jelena undertook a thorough preparation of the matter, including:

    • Preparing a detailed affidavit outlining the client’s background, health, personal history, and the unusual context of the offending

    • Gathering strong character references from respected members of the community and professional colleagues

    • Assisting the client in drafting a genuine letter of remorse, demonstrating insight into the seriousness of the conduct and the impact of her actions

    • Making structured submissions to the court addressing the objective seriousness of the offence, the client’s subjective circumstances, and the principles governing the exercise of discretion under section 10

    At sentencing, Jelena successfully persuaded the Magistrate that this was an appropriate case for the court to exercise leniency. The Magistrate accepted that the offence was out of character, that the client posed no ongoing risk, and that recording a conviction would be disproportionately punitive given her age, background, and otherwise exemplary life.

    The court ultimately dealt with the matter under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), imposing a Conditional Release Order without a criminal conviction being recorded.

    This outcome allowed our client to move forward without the burden of a criminal record, preserving her reputation, independence, and standing within her community.

  • Our client was a 31 year old publican from the Southern Highlands with no prior criminal history and a good traffic record. When he was stopped for the purposes of a RBT, he returned a positive reading to alcohol. His reading was 0.085, falling just into the middle-range category. NSW police issued him with an immediate licence suspension. By the time our client’s matter proceeded to sentence at Moss Vale Local Court, almost 2 months had passed since the offence had occurred. He thus spent 2 months suspended from driving. The maximum penalty for this offence is 9 months imprisonment and/or a fine of $2,200. If convicted, this offence carries an automatic period of licence disqualification of 12 months or minimum period of licence disqualification of 6 months without an interlock order, or an automatic period of licence disqualification of 6 months or minimum period of licence disqualification of 3 months with a 12 month mandatory interlock order. Jelena prepared the matter for sentence by obtaining character references and an apology letter from our client as well as obtaining proof of our client’s completion of the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP). Jelena was able to demonstrate our client’s real need for a licence, noting that his nearest public transportation was a 40 minute walk from his home. Jelena made compelling and persuasive submissions on behalf of our client, demonstrating his real need for a licence and low risk of re-offending. The Magistrate made an order under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), discharging our client into a Conditional Release Order without a criminal conviction recorded. Our client was thus able to avoid a licence disqualification.

  • Our client was a 20 year old woman employed as a veterinary nurse with no criminal background. She was charged with 9 counts of larceny. This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years and/or a $5,500 fine in the Local Court. Through consulting with Jelena, the client disclosed that she had been regularly using benzodiazepines along with other illicit drugs and had used them prior to committing the offence. As a veterinary nurse, the client was concerned about the impact of criminal convictions on her current job and any future roles that she may apply for. Jelena assisted our client with gaining access to rehabilitation. Jelena prepared a letter of instruction to a psychiatrist along with further material for a comprehensive psychiatric report for the purposes of a section 14 application under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). Jelena also helped our client prepare subjective material for Court. Whilst the Magistrate did not proceed to allow the section 14 application the Magistrate was persuaded by Jelena to deal with our client under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), discharging our client into Conditional Release Orders without criminal convictions recorded for all 9 counts of shoplifting. Our client was grateful to avoid criminal convictions for 9 counts of shoplifting.

  • Our client was a 64 year old male. He had no criminal history. The complainant was an officer authorised to disconnect electricity. The officer had entered the client’s property in order to disconnect electricity for non-payment of bills. The client disputed that there were outstanding bills and challenged the officer. The officer proceeded to the electricity box to disconnect the electricity. The client pushed the officer, causing him to fall over and sustain a laceration to his eye. He was subsequently charged with common assault. We raised two issues with the prosecution case. Firstly, whether the complainant had the legal right to enter the client’s property and disconnect his electricity. It was argued a number of preconditions to exercising that power of entry had not been complied with. The second issue was whether the client was acting in self-defence. It was submitted that the client acted to protect his property from unlawful damage or interference, and was not guilty of the offence under the self-defence provisions (section 418(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)). Both the officer and the client gave evidence at hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was adjourned for written submissions to be provided to the Court. Ultimately, the Magistrate was not persuaded that the officer’s entry was lawful. The client was found not guilty due to self-defence. The allegation was dismissed. The client was thrilled because he was able to maintain his clean criminal record.

  • Our client was a 48 year old man with limited criminal antecedents. He was previously employed as a NSW police officer and left the NSW police force due to developing significant mental health issues as a result of what he witnessed during his time as a serving police officer. He was charged with two counts of common assault domestic violence related after an argument occurred in the family home with his 16-year-old daughter. His 16-year-old daughter was the named victim in both counts.

    The first count related to our client’s act of excessively disciplining his daughter for how she spoke to her mother. The second count related to the physical act he took to prevent his daughter running away from home. Common assault domestic violence related carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years and/or a maximum fine of $5,500. Our client was concerned about the impact of criminal convictions on his employment, particularly as he had commenced a new role with his new employer and was subject to a probationary period and criminal background check. He engaged Jelena as his legal representative. From the outset, Jelena was transparent and explained to him that there may be difficulties in avoiding a criminal conviction, due to the offences being aggravated by the fact that the victim was a child and that the offence occurred in the family home.

    Our client was also subject to an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) which prevented him from being in the family home with his wife and the victim. He instructed Jelena to vary the ADVO and his bail conditions to allow him back in the family home. In obtaining detailed instructions from our client about his version of events, it became apparent to Jelena that whilst our client instructed us to plead guilty, there were issues with the police facts sheet. Through working closely with our client, Jelena prepared formal representations seeking an amendment to the police facts sheet in line with our client’s instructions. Jelena was able to successfully persuade Nepean PAC to agree to our amended facts sheet. Jelena comprehensively prepared for an ADVO and bail variation application to the court to amend the ADVO and bail conditions in line with our client’s instructions. Jelena gathered relevant subjective material to support our variation applications and evidence that our client was undergoing significant rehabilitation for his mental health and that he was committed to continuing his rehabilitation. In building a good relationship with the client, our client was able to trust Jelena to explain to her his history of mental health issues. Jelena explained the process of making a section 14 application under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Provisions Act 2020. Jelena assisted our client by organising a section 14 report to be prepared by a psychologist and further medical material in support of the application.

    The matter was listed for a section 14 hearing before a Magistrate in Penrith Local Court. In support of this section 14 application, Jelena filed psychological and medical material to Penrith Local Court and Penrith prosecutors. When the matter proceeded, Jelena was able to persuade the Magistrate to deal with the two offences under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2020 (‘the Act’) than otherwise in accordance with the law. The Magistrate dismissed both offences under a section 14(1)(a) order under the Act. This meant that our client avoided criminal convictions for both counts of common assault domestic violence related. In turn, he was able to continue in his place of employment.

  • Our client was a 38 year old man previously known to police. Jelena had previously successfully represented him in two older, separate matters at Liverpool Local Court. As a result of the client previously receiving good outcomes in court and trusting Jelena to handle his legal matters, when he found himself in legal trouble again, he contacted Jelena again to represent him for his third matter in Liverpool Local Court. Our client was charged with three domestic violence offences relating to an evening he returned home intoxicated to his partner. It was alleged by NSW police that he became physically violent with her, assaulting her and assaulting her occasioning actual bodily harm. The first offence he was charged with was common assault domestic violence related, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years and/or a maximum fine of $5,500. The second offence he was charged with was assault occasioning actual bodily harm domestic violence related, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years if dealt with in the District Court, or 2 years if dealt with in the Local Court jurisdiction and/or a fine of $5,500. The third offence he was charged with was contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic), which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years and/or a fine of $5,500. Our client instructed us to plead not guilty to the offences of common assault domestic violence related and assault occasioning actual bodily harm domestic violence related. From the moment he engaged Jelena as his solicitor again, our client was adamant that the alleged assaults never took place and that he, in fact, was assaulted by the alleged victim. Our client instructed us to enter a plea of guilty to the offence contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO, as he had been in breach of an AVO due to breaching condition 4 of the AVO, which prohibited him from contacting or approaching his partner within 12 hours of consuming alcohol. Our client had made admissions to police that he had been drinking within the 12 hour period, but he firmly denied ever assaulting the alleged victim. The matter was listed for a defended hearing at Liverpool Local Court. Jelena worked together with our client to obtain detailed instructions from him about the evening in question. Jelena diligently prepared for the defended hearing. Jelena rigorously cross-examined the alleged victim in the matter, putting our client’s detailed version of events to her and questioning her about whether she told police the full truth about the events of the evening our client arrived home. Through Jelena’s cross-examination of the alleged victim, the alleged victim conceded that she had previously been charged with common assault domestic violence related and that she was currently subject to an Apprehended Violence Order, with our client named as a the victim and protected person, which persuaded the court that she had a history of domestic violence as a perpetrator against our client. Through lengthy and rigorous cross-examination and compelling oral submissions, Jelena was able to persuade the Magistrate that there were significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, which suggested that she was not a credible nor truthful police witness. Ultimately, the Magistrate found our client not guilty of both assault offences and the charges were dismissed. As for the plea of guilty which was entered to the contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) for the act of contacting or approaching the victim within 12 hours of consuming alcohol, his Honour convicted our client and fined him a reduced fine of $1,100. Our client was immensely thankful to Jelena for handling his third and final matter with confidence and ease.

  • Our client was a 31 year old mother with no prior criminal record. She was charged with the offence drive with middle range PCA – first offence, with a reading of 0.134 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath. This was a significant reading falling towards the upper end of readings for a middle range PCA. She was stopped for the purpose of a random breath test at a random breath testing site. When she was stopped, she was travelling from Moore Park, NSW, to her home in Teresa Park, NSW – a significant distance. When our client first came to Jelena to few days before her sentencing date, she explained to her that she was previously legally represented by another law firm. She had already entered a plea of guilty to the offence and her matter was set down for Local Court sentence before a Magistrate in Picton Local Court. Our client was panicked and explained to Jelena that the lawyer she had previously instructed did not want to appear before this particular Magistrate. Above all, our client was concerned about the impact of a criminal conviction and subsequent licence disqualification given her line of work and that she often volunteers in her spare time with a children’s charity. The offence drive with middle range PCA – first offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 9 months and a maximum fine of $2,200. Upon conviction, there is also an automatic period of licence disqualification of 6 months, or a minimum licence disqualification of 3 months, with a 12 month mandatory interlock order. In the absence of an interlock order, it carries an automatic period of licence disqualification of 12 months or a minimum licence disqualification of 6 months. Jelena was able to reassure our client that she would be in capable and good hands and that we would be available and ready to represent her in her sentence before his Honour. Jelena also re-assured our client that she had experience appearing before this Magistrate in other courts. Jelena explained to our client that it is statistically common that offenders do receive a conviction, licence disqualification, mandatory interlock order and fine, but that we would be well prepared and seek a section 10(1)(b) Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction (in other words, a ‘good behaviour bond without conviction’). Jelena worked together with our client to prepare comprehensive subjective material. In court, compelling oral submissions were made by Jelena to his Honour. On our client’s instruction, Jelena submitted to the court that our client was a mother to an infant child and she also came to learn that was expecting her second child with her husband, which meant that she would not be consuming any alcohol for the duration of the pregnancy. Jelena also submitted to the court that our client had a real need for a licence. Our client is gainfully employed as a digital marketing creator in the media industry, which sees her regularly travelling to media events that are often held in the Sydney City area. Jelena also went into significant detail in her submissions about the significant distance our client is required to travel for work from her home in Theresa Park to Sydney City and the late hours involved in her work. Our client’s nearest bus stop is several kilometres away, which meant that it would be difficult for her to rely on public transportation, especially as she progresses through her pregnancy – a concern our client had after recently suffering a miscarriage. Jelena also went into detail in her submissions about how our client is also involved with a children’s charity foundation, which sees her regularly visit sick children in the children’s hospital as a volunteer. Given this, Jelena submitted that if our client is convicted of a criminal offence, it would jeopardise her working with children check. Jelena was able to successfully persuade the Magistrate to deal with our client by way of a Conditional Release Order without conviction. His Honour ordered that our client enter into a CRO without conviction, for a period of 18 months, with an additional condition that she abstain from alcohol for the duration of the RO. Our client was pleased to have trusted Jelena to appear on her behalf. Above all, she was pleased to be able to avoid a criminal conviction and to avoid a licence disqualification.

  • Our client was a 43 year old man employed as a rigger across NSW. He was charged with negligent driving occasioning death – first offence, following a tragic set of circumstances that occurred as he was making his way from rural NSW to visit his partner in Sydney’s South West. Our client had collided with the victim, who was on a motorcycle, whilst conducting a right hand turn at an intersection. Our client had been travelling at a slow speed as he conducted the right-hand turn. Upon collision, the victim was ejected from his motorcycle and landed approximately ten metres away from the point of impact. First responders attempted to revive the victim, however, it was not long until he was pronounced deceased at the site. The offence negligent driving occasioning death – first offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 18 months. It also carries a maximum fine of $3,300 as well as an automatic period of licence disqualification of 3 years, or a minimum period of licence disqualification of 12 months. When our client first contacted us, he was very distressed as a result of the tragic accident. Jelena was patient and calm with our client and explained the court process to him. Jelena also obtained detailed instructions from our client. In taking these instructions, it became apparent that our client was suspended from driving by NSW police as a result of this offence and that as part of his bail conditions, he was not permitted to occupy the driver’s seat of a vehicle. As a result, our client lost his employment and was out of work. He was concerned about potentially facing jail time and being out of work. Before the substantive charge matter reached court, Jelena filed a licence suspension appeal against NSW police’s decision to suspend his licence for the offence negligent driving occasioning death. A bail variation application was also filed in support. The licence suspension appeal against police was listed in Picton Local Court a Magistrate. Compelling submissions were made by Jelena on behalf of our client and some subjective material was tendered to the court by Jelena in support of our application. The Magistrate agreed to allow our appeal and to vary our client’s bail conditions. This meant that the licence suspension was lifted and that the bail conditions were varied to delete the condition that he could not occupy a driver’s seat of a vehicle. Our client was able to drive and go back to work. As is common for these kinds of matters, the matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in accordance with the Singh protocol. The matter, however, remained a police matter and was to be dealt with locally in Picton Local Court. Our client initially instructed us to plead not guilty. An order was made by the Magistrate for police to serve the brief of evidence to us. Jelena carefully reviewed the brief of evidence with our client and obtained comprehensive instructions from our client. Our client placed his trust in Jelena’s legal expertise and was detailed in his instructions, meaning that we could work together to carefully prepare for court. Upon review of the brief and instructions, our client instructed Jelena to enter a plea of guilty to the offence. The Magistrate requested a Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) and the matter was adjourned for the report and for Local Court sentence. Police then contacted Jelena to advise her that an additional sequence would be added for the offence drive motor vehicle with illicit drug present in oral fluid etc. – first offence. This came as a result of a positive reading to the illicit drug cannabis appearing in our client’s bloodwork. Our client’s blood sample was taken at the local hospital not long after the tragic accident took place. It took some time for these results to come through, however, when they did, it became apparent on our client’s instructions and the evidence, that he was driving a motor vehicle with illicit drug present in oral fluid. A plea of guilty to this offence was entered when the charge was added. Jelena briefed a barrister in the matter to appear for the Local Court sentence. Together, Jelena and our barrister, as well as our client, prepared for the Local Court sentence. Jelena assisted counsel by gathering some compelling subjective material in support of our client’s subjective circumstances. Written submissions were prepared by counsel. It was a very difficult and emotional day in court, with the deceased victim’s family present in court. The Magistrate sentenced our client to 10 months imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO). This means that our client was able to avoid full-time jail. Instead, he was subject to an ICO with supervision by his local community corrections office and ordered to undertake 80 hours of community serve work. As is mandatory upon conviction, our client was disqualified from driving. The Magistrate was persuaded to reduce the automatic period of licence disqualification, down to a period of 17 months. In relation to the offence drive with illicit drug present in oral fluid – first offence, our client was convicted and fined $1,100 (reduced from maximum fine of $2,200). As a result of the conviction, the Magistrate disqualified our client from driving for the automatic period of 6 months. Our client was very grateful to have avoided a custodial sentence and to have been able to serve a term of imprisonment in the community.

  • Our client was 66 years of age and is retired. His wife and he own a property in which they live in and let out rooms to renters. He was charged with sexual intercourse without consent, with the alleged victim being one of his tenants in his home. The offence sexual intercourse without consent is a strictly indictable offence that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years, with a standard non-parole period of 7 years. Strictly indictable offences go through a different process in the courts compared to non-strictly indictable offences that can often simply and swiftly be resolved in the Local Court. It is often a lengthier process that involves police serving the brief to us and the matter being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Once referred to the DPP, a charge certificate is prepared, and case conferences take place between the defence and prosecution. The process started with NSW police arresting and charging our client. The matter was first listed in Liverpool Local Court in which our solicitor, Jelena, appeared. As is common for these types of strictly indictable criminal matters, the DPP took carriage of the matter. Our client instructed us that sexual intercourse did take place, but that it was consensual, which became the key issue. Jelena continued to represent our client throughout the entire court process and organised for a barrister to be briefed in the matter. Through the committal process, the matter was eventually set down for a five day trial at Parramatta District Court. The trial took place in Parramatta District Court before a Judge. Towards the end of the prosecution evidence during the trial, there was a procedural fairness issue that arose. An application under section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was made by us to the court to have a Judge alone trial, which was granted by his Honour. On day five of the trial, Judge McGrath found our client not guilty of the offence sexual intercourse without consent. Our client was very grateful to have avoided a term of imprisonment. All that remained was the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) which NSW police had applied for at the commencement of the proceedings. Jelena appeared again in Liverpool Local Court after the trial was finalised in Parramatta. NSW police agreed to withdraw their application for the ADVO. As a result, Magistrate Abdul-Karim dismissed the police application for the ADVO.

Articles