@Parramatta Local Court
Our 38-year-old client, a mother supporting her family overseas, faced criminal charges following an incident after a family gathering in north-western Sydney. Following a pleasant retreat in the Blue Mountains, she drove her family to her parents’ home. While enjoying tea, an argument erupted between our client and her mother over inappropriate language use in front of her child. The confrontation escalated when her mother attempted to take the child from her arms, prompting our client to push her mother away gently with her forearm.
The situation intensified, with allegations that our client kicked her husband more than 50 times, resulting in a minor injury, before he retaliated. After calling emergency services to report her husband’s conduct, she was arrested and charged with common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Upon contacting Lamont Law, our client conveyed her version of events and disputed the charges. Notably, she had a significant mental health history exacerbated by her circumstances at the time. Our solicitor, Joanna, guided her through the process of amending the charges and prepared representations to the police, resulting in the serious charge being downgraded.
At Parramatta Local Court, Joanna argued for dismissal of the charges and proposed a twelve-month diversion to mental health care, including psychological counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy. The court accepted these submissions, dismissing the charges and allowing our client to pursue structured rehabilitation, avoiding a criminal conviction.
@Newcastle Local Court
Our client was charged with one (1) count of driving a motor vehicle with intent to menace another driver.
The allegation was that, after some aggressive driving, our client used her car to “ram” the complainant’s car several times at traffic lights causing extensive damage.
The offence is serious as it carries a maximum penalty of 18 months imprisonment and/or a fine of $3,300. If a criminal conviction is recorded, the offence carries an automatic licence disqualification of 3 years, with a minimum disqualification of 12 months.
Our client relied heavily on her driver’s licence to transport her children, so the prospect of losing her licence for 3 years caused her significant anxiety.
There were two witnesses relied upon by the prosecution; the complainant and an independent civilian witness.
Both witnesses were subject to extensive cross-examination during the hearing, and deficiencies in the prosecution case became apparent.
At the close of the prosecution case, we made which is colloquially referred to as a “second limb submission”, on that basis that there must have been reasonable doubt. This meant that our client was spared from giving evidence in the witness box.
The Magistrate was persuaded by our submissions and the client was found not guilty.
This was an ideal outcome as our client was able to maintain a clear criminal record and keep her drivers’ licence.
@Newcastle Local Court
Our client was a 45-year-old male charged with one count of ‘armed with intent to commit indictable offence’ and one count of ‘stalk/intimidate with intent to cause fear’ (laid as a backup offence). The complainant was a former friend he had known for over 20 years.
On the night in question, the complainant attended the home of our client for a pre-arranged sexual dominatrix three-some with our client and his female housemate. The police case was that our client had demanded the complainant participate in ‘torture play’ which she had refused. Consequently, he demanded that she go into the kitchen, get a knife and cut her arm as a punishment. Police say he then held a knife to her throat and told her “you need to fix this” and “do what we organised”.
Our client pleaded not guilty. At the hearing, the complainant was challenged at length in cross-examination. It was put to the complainant that she had a motive to lie, and her version was entirely fabricated. At the conclusion of the complainant’s evidence Skye successfully submitted to the court that there was no case to answer. Our client was found not guilty without having to raise a defence case.@Newcastle Local Court
Our client was a 20-year-old male charged with ‘use carriage service to menace/harass’ and ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’. The complainant was his former partner of three years.
The police case was, after enjoying a night out at Honeysuckle the two caught an uber to the complainant’s home in New Lambton. The complainant alleged that our client had taken her phone in the Uber and this resulted in argument between them. She told police on body-worn camera that they exited the uber and continued to argue at which time our client had pushed her to the ground multiple times causing her to hit her head and resulting in several lacerations to her elbows, knees and hands. She was taken to hospital and over the course of an hour our client had sent her 30 text messages. He was charged with the offences and pleaded not guilty.
At the hearing, Skye put our client’s version to the complainant in cross-examination. She was challenged about the cause of her injuries which, on the defence case, occurred as a result of her intoxication. She denied this.
At the conclusion of the hearing the court indicated its intention to find our client not guilty in respect of the assault offence, but adjourned the matter for further legal argument with respect to the use carriage offence.
Skye and Tristan Appleton worked together preparing a compelling legal argument and ultimately our client was acquitted of all charges.
@Moss Vale Local Court
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.
-
@Moss Vale Local Court
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.
@Maitland Local Court
Our client was charged with possessing a prohibited drug, the drug being methylamphetamine (commonly known as ‘ice’). The maximum penalty for the offence is two years imprisonment. The offence placed the client in breach of an earlier Conditional Release Order without conviction, for an identical offence. We referred our client to the MERIT Drug Program, which he successfully completed. At the conclusion of the Program, the Magistrate was persuaded to extend leniency for both the current matter and the breach matter, imposing another Conditional Release Order without conviction. The client was thrilled because he had ambitions to travel overseas in the near future and he was concerned about any potential impact of a criminal conviction for a drug-related matter.
@Maitland Local Court
Our client was a 36-year-old male, and self-employed builder. He was charged with one count of negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, and one count of negligent driving (no death or grievous bodily harm) as a back up offence. The circumstances are that on new-years-eve morning just after 8:30am, our client was leaving Bunnings, Maitland when his vehicle collided with a female pedestrian. Our client immediately rendered assistance. She was taken to Maitland hospital where she treated for a broken tibia requiring a piece of her hip to be used as a bone graft. She was bed bound for six weeks.
Following the accident our client returned the victim’s car to her home, fed her dog, collected some of her personal belongings for her including her mobile phone and delivered them to her at the hospital. Police later attended and took a statement from the victim and our client was charged with the offences. He pleaded not guilty. At the hearing the victim was challenged in cross-examination and our client was ultimately found not guilty. The court found that ‘bunnings’ is a busy place and one would expect a reasonable degree of care – but what had come out of cross-examination is that the complainant could not be sure that our client had done anything to depart from the reasonable standard of care of the ordinary driver.
Our client was ecstatic with the outcome and to avoided a potential disqualification order for three-years which would derail his business.@Hornsby Local Court
Our 43-year-old client was charged with driving with a high-range prescribed concentration of alcohol (PCA) after a distressing incident. While at home, she consumed a bottle of wine and engaged in self-harming behaviour, causing significant injuries to her forearms. She decided to drive herself to the Emergency Room for treatment. While driving out of her apartment complex’s basement, she collided with a storage cage and a stone barrier, stopping against the building’s exterior wall. Witnesses aided her, and emergency services soon arrived. A roadside breath analysis revealed a BAC of 0.294, significantly above the legal limit of 0.05 for unrestricted licence holders in NSW.
After being charged, our client contacted Lamont Law and spoke with criminal defence solicitor Joanna. She disclosed her history of alcohol abuse, self-harm, and mental health decline. Our client pleaded guilty and was concerned about the possibility of imprisonment, though she had since completed an alcohol detox program and was engaged in ongoing rehabilitation.
Joanna worked with her client’s healthcare providers to prepare a psychological report detailing her alcohol abuse history and mental health challenges. In court, Joanna emphasized her client’s rehabilitation progress, remorse, and participation in the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program, advocating for a non-custodial sentence.
The court accepted Joanna’s submissions, sentencing our client to an 18-month Intensive Corrections Order with mandatory rehabilitation. Her driver’s licence was disqualified for nine months, and she was placed in a 48-month interlock program, much to her relief.@Hornsby Local Court
Our 57-year-old client, self-employed, was charged with contravening an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) after an incident involving his brother and nephew. Following a family dispute, an ADVO was imposed, and a few months later, our client was accused of following his brother and nephew while driving through West Gosford. Unaware of their presence, he was on his way to a Bunnings store for business purposes. His brother and nephew, however, claimed he was knowingly breaching the ADVO by following them.
After his arrest, our client sought legal representation from Lamont Law and provided a detailed account of his actions on the day. He explained that he was unaware of their presence and was simply traveling through a major thoroughfare to his destination. Joanna, his criminal defence solicitor, explained that for the charge to hold, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that our client knowingly breached the ADVO, which was not the case here.
At the hearing in Hornsby Local Court, video evidence provided by the nephew showed our client driving at a normal speed, maintaining a significant distance, and making no suggestive movements of following. During cross-examination, Joanna highlighted the absence of proof that he was aware of their presence or that he was trying to follow them. His Honour ultimately accepted Joanna’s submissions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove our client knowingly breached the ADVO, leading to his acquittal.
Call A Lawyer Now
High Success Rate
Legal Experts
Free Consult • Confidential • Fixed Fees
Request a Call
