@Gosford Local Court
Our client was a 33-year-old stay at home mother. Along with four other people, she was charged with affray after a physical altercation unfolded outside her home in the early hours of the morning. There was no CCTV footage capturing the incident. Several different accounts were provided by six parties present at the location. It was alleged that one of the co-accused parties charged at the male victim, used his right hand to punch the victim in the face with a closed fist, and wrestled him to the ground. The two parties wrestled and rolled through the front of the property for a short time; during which, the male victim sustained a serious injury amounting to grievous bodily harm. It was alleged that our client jumped on top of the male victim, punching him several times in the face. Our client was alleged to have later assaulted a female victim by sitting on top of her and using a closed fist to punch the female victim several times in the jaw. Shortly after the incident, the Police arrived and spoke with our client. She maintained that she was initially acting in defence of her friend and later in self defence during the physical altercation with the female victim. After being charged with the offence, our client contacted Lamont Law and spoke with our criminal defence solicitor, Joanna. Our client provided detailed instructions regarding the physical altercation, and she presented evidence of the injuries she sustained during the melee. Three of the co-accused parties pleaded guilty to affray. Our client and one co-accused entered a plea of not guilty and the matter was listed for a defended hearing at Wyong Local Court. The co-accused party was not legally represented at the time of hearing. We obtained the brief of evidence from the NSW Police. Joanna meticulously scrutinised the witness statements, reviewed our client’s detailed instructions, and she reviewed the images of the injuries our client sustained during the physical altercation. It soon became clear that our client was indeed acting in defence of her friend and later in self-defence. At the time of hearing, our solicitor, Joanna, systematically dismantled the prosecution case by highlighting material inconsistencies between, and deficiencies within, the witness statements. She elicited evidence from our client to the effect that she acted in response to an attack upon her friends and later in self-defence. After consideration of the evidence and upon hearing the closing submissions, His Honour concluded that the prosecution failed to negative the possibility of self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. Our client was found not guilty of the charge, and the matter was dismissed.
@Bankstown Local Court
Our client was 53 years of age. He was charged with one count of possession of child abuse material contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It is a serious offence to possess child abuse material in New South Wales carrying a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment to the District Court. Offenders often face strict penalties, including full-time imprisonment and registration on the Child Protection Register, reflecting Parliament’s commitment to safeguarding vulnerable young persons from exploitation and abuse. A search warrant was executed on our client’s home. Our client assisted Police with their search by directing investigators to the location of each of his electronic devices and seven electronic devices were subsequently seized. When questioned by the Police, our client immediately made admissions to having downloaded child abuse material a few months prior. He informed investigators that he accessed the material over a three-day period and believed that he deleted the material from his laptop. A forensic digital analysis was conducted of each of our client’s electronic devices. Investigators restored and retrieved 885 deleted media files, accessed over a three-day period, from one laptop. The forensic examination further revealed that our client used specific, explicit, search terms to locate the child abuse material. After being charged and released on conditional bail, our client contacted Lamont Law where he spoke with our criminal defence solicitor, Joanna. He disclosed the circumstances of the offence, and a history of alcohol and illicit substance abuse, along with a significant history of mental health impairments. Our client explained that he intended to plead guilty and that his greatest concern was that he may be sentenced to a term of full-time imprisonment. Joanna offered assurance that she would do everything she can to support him and guide him through the Court process. Of crucial importance, Joanna was transparent throughout the entire process. From the outset, she explained the elements of the offence (what is required to prove the offence), the maximum penalties and the likelihood of a sentence of full-time imprisonment. We set a goal to work towards, but we provided a realistic outcome in the circumstances. We were able to tell him exactly what he needed to prepare before our Court date, and we made ourselves available for all his questions along the way. We immediately consulted with his treating psychologist to prepare both a psychological report confirming his mental health history and a report assessing our client’s risk of reoffending in a similar manner. Joanna conducted her due diligence by reviewing the material so as to ensure that the material located by investigators amounted to child abuse material. Before attending Court, Joanna prepared comprehensive written submissions setting out our clients compelling subjective circumstances, history of mental health impairments, history of illicit substance and alcohol misuse, intention to dispose of the material, and advocated for a non-custodial sentence. Together we appeared at Bankstown Local Court, where Joanna made further compelling submissions on behalf of our client. She acknowledged the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence for offending of this kind. Importantly, she highlighted that the access occurred over a limited period, that there was evidence consistent with his intention to dispose of the material, and that he was now well engaged in rehabilitation. Joanna advocated that a non-custodial sentence would be more appropriate in light of our client’s proactive engagement in supervised rehabilitation, his low risk of reoffending, his compelling subjective circumstances, and the remorse he demonstrated throughout the proceedings. Her Honour accepted the submissions made by Joanna when determining the appropriate penalty for our client. Our client was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for three years with strict conditions in respect of supervision, ongoing rehabilitation, and unpaid work in the community. Our client was relieved to have avoided a sentence of full-time imprisonment and to remain in the community.
@Waverley Local Court
Our client was 46 years of age. He was charged with the offence of possession of a prohibited drug, specifically cannabis. Whilst waiting for local public transportation, our client came to the attention of Police Drug Dogs. Our client was subsequently questioned and searched by the attending Police. He was found to be in possession of a significant quantity of the drug. When questioned by Police, he made full and frank admissions to having been in possession of cannabis. He promptly handed Police his backpack and directed them to the location of the drug. Our client was subsequently charged with his first criminal offence. After making contact with Lamont Law, he spoke with our criminal defence solicitor, Joanna. He explained that his primary concern was the impact which the recording of a criminal conviction will have upon the status of his employment. That it would likely result in the termination of his employment. We assisted him in the preparation of his subjective material. On the date of sentence, we appeared at Waverley Local Court. Our solicitor, Joanna, advocated for leniency by emphasizing features which distinguished our client from similar offenders before the Court. It was submitted that our client demonstrated genuine contrition. This was evidenced by his ongoing cooperation with the Police throughout the investigation, his early plea of guilty, and his proactive participation in extensive rehabilitation to manage and treat his illicit substance misuse. Our client had no prior criminal history. It was ultimately submitted that he was a person of otherwise good character, and a person who had good prospects of rehabilitation. His Honour took into account those features when determining the appropriate penalty for our client. He was sentenced to a Conditional Release Order for fifteen months, without conviction. Our client was elated with the outcome.
@Maitland Local Court
Our client was a 21-year-old male and holder of a provisional one licence. He was facing his second period of suspension for exceeding the speed limit by more than 10km. The earlier offence was also an exceed speed which incurred double demerits. The offences occurred one month apart, however the second notice of suspension was not received until the first period of suspension had concluded. Our client appealed the second suspension of three (3) months, as he had recently commenced working in childcare and relied on his licence to get to and from work. We guided our client in preparing for the appeal. Our solicitor Skye appeared in the Local Court and made compelling submissions. The Court was persuaded to uphold the appeal and quash the decision of TfNSW. Our client was so relieved to have avoided a second period of suspension of three (3) months, which would effectively leave him unable to work.
@Maitland Local Court
Our client was a 48-year-old male charged with AOABH – domestic violence related. The Facts of the matter are that our client’s former partner made a complaint to police of a number of domestic violence related offences. First, an allegation that our client had slapped her in the face and pushed her so hard that her head hit the wall. The offence charged was one of assault. Second, inter alia, an allegation that on a separate occasion our client punched her in the face causing a black eye and swelling. A photograph was provided. The offence charged was AOABH. Our client pleaded guilty to assault on the basis that he did push the complainant during an argument in which she was cornering him and yelling in his face. In relation to the AOABH, he maintained a plea of not guilty on the basis that the complainant fell into his elbow after having assaulted him. The offences were dealt with together by way of disputed facts hearing, and defended hearing. The complainant gave evidence and maintained that she did not assault our client. The complainant was cross-examined at length by our criminal defence lawyer, Skye. Ultimately the Court persuaded by our submissions and in relation to the assault, the conduct was an open palmed push to the shoulders in circumstances of provocation. In relation to the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, our client was found Not Guilty.
@Raymond Terrace Local Court
Our client was a 25-year-old male charged with dishonestly obtain financial advantage. The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment on indictment, as well as a monetary penalty of $11,000. The facts of the matter are that our client obtained a false identity from Google, and using that created a fake Facebook account. He listed various and expensive car parts on marketplace and upon receiving payment he blocked the respective buyers accounts. Our client’s family made contact with Lamont Law and he was scheduled in a consultation with our criminal defence lawyer Skye. After working closely with our client, he disclosed that he was motivated by a gambling problem which caused him deep shame. We were able to correspond with Police in relation to the Facts, and direct the client in terms of preparing for the best outcome possible. As a result of our thorough preparation prior to Court, and compelling submissions on sentence, we were able to persuade the Court to deal with the matter by way of Conditional Release Order without conviction. Our client and his family were so grateful that he was able to avoid a criminal conviction for a fraud related offence, which may have serious consequences on his future prospects of employment.
@Newcastle Local Court
Our client was a 43-year-old male charged with mid-range PCA. He was issued an immediate licence suspension by Police resulting in significant disruption to his employment in disability support. The Facts of the matter are that our client and his partner were drinking at their local hotel. They attempted to order an Uber but there was an extensive wait. He made the decision to drive the short distance home, where he came to the attention of police for driving 10km below the speed limit. He was subjected to a roadside breath test and was ultimately arrested. His reading was .122. Our client made contact with Lamont Law and spoke with our criminal defence lawyer, Skye. We were able to guide our client in terms of preparing subjective material to achieve the best outcome possible. Our client was sentenced by way of Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of twelve (12) months. Both he and his partner were elated by this outcome. Not just for having avoiding a criminal record, but for the immediate return of his licence and avoiding twelve months subject to the interlock order.
@Sydney Local Court
Our client was a 67-year-old male charged with six counts of serious indictable offences. Following his arrest, he was refused bail in the Local Court and sent to gaol where he would await trial for up to two years on remand. Our client’s daughter made contact with our afterhours service and we prepared to make an urgent application for bail to the Supreme Court. At the bail hearing, the Crown adduced evidence of preliminary DNA testing which appeared as a match with our client. It was their position that the Crown case is a strong one and that bail should be refused. With thorough preparation and research, we were able to raise doubt with respect to the DNA evidence at this early stage, and direct the Court to a number of cases in support of our position. Ultimately, the Honourable Judge found in favour of our client and he was released from custody. His family were so grateful to have him home. After the hearing, our client phoned to express his gratitude for our professionalism in Court, and for the way that his case was presented to the Judge. He said: “You are exactly what I am looking for in a lawyer. Smart, confident, but not cocky. Thank you for knowing when to push but also when not to. I think it made all the difference in the end.
@Raymond Terrace Local Court
Our client was a 41-year-old male charged with the offence of drive whilst suspended for which he entered a plea of not guilty. At the hearing, police adduced body worn video of the roadside interaction as evidence that our client knew his driver’s licence was in fact suspended. We raised the defence of ‘honest and reasonable mistake of fact’ and our client gave evidence to the effect that he was unaware of the suspension. In order for the defence to succeed, the Court must be satisfied that the mistaken fact in question, was both honest and reasonable. The test for ‘reasonable’ can be a difficult one as Courts are rarely willing to accept that a person has not received a Notice of Suspension. Particularly in the current climate of quick access to digital licencing through your smart phone. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate was persuaded by our submissions and our client was found not guilty. This meant avoiding a court ordered disqualification period, which our client considered an outstanding result.
@Raymond Terrace Local Court
Our client was a 47-year-old male. The complainant was the director of a familiar construction company and the owner of the three (3) constructions sites in question. The particulars of the charge were that our client stole building materials to the value of over $45,000. The evidence included several witnesses who placed our client at the sites; the materials having been located by Police at our client’s home, as well as two recorded interviews whereby our client made admissions prior to seeking legal advice. With the physical case being a strong one, we raised two issues with the prosecution case. First that the property in question was abandoned at law; and second that, our client did not possess the necessary dishonest intent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned Magistrate was persuaded by our submissions and our client was found not guilty. The client was ecstatic to have avoided conviction and a compensation order of $45,000.
Call A Lawyer Now
High Success Rate
Legal Experts
Free Consult • Confidential • Fixed Fees
Request a Call
