@Penrith Local Court
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.
@Campbelltown Local Court
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.
@Moss Vale Local Court
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.
@Downing Centre Local Court
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.
@Moss Vale Local Court
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.
@Moss Vale Local Court
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.
@Liverpool Local Court
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.
@Burwood Local Court
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.
@Penrith Local Court
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.
@Maitland Local Court
Our client was a 20 year-old male charged with domestic violence related offences involving his father at their home. Our client was arrested and taken into custody, with the family arranging for our solicitor Skye to arrive at Maitland Police Station shortly after.
Through a well-considered release application, our client was granted conditional bail upon a plea of guilty to 3 of the 5 charged offences. The matter was adjourned for hearing on the defended charges. At the hearing, two offences were withdrawn and dismissed. Skye was able to persuade the court to apply for the full utilitarian discount, and made compelling submissions on sentence. Ultimately, the charges were dismissed subject to the condition our client be of good behaviour for twelve (12) months. There was no conviction, and no penalty. Our client expressed his sincerest gratitude for having avoided a criminal record, with just one week to go in his education before progressing to work-placement.
Call A Lawyer Now
High Success Rate
Legal Experts
Free Consult • Confidential • Fixed Fees
Request a Call
