Charges Withdrawn and Dismissed – Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended, Drive unregistered motor vehicle

Our client was a 47-year-old male who had been charged with one count of ‘Solo driver rest less than minimum time – critical breach’. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $18 940 and 4 demerit points. The extreme penalty for this offence relates to high potential for danger when heavy vehicle operators are driving whilst under significant fatigue. The facts of this matter were that the client had only had 4.5 hours of continuous rest time inside a 24-hour period. The minimum continuous rest time is 7 hours. Our client approached Lamont Law seeking advice on how best to seek leniency for the matter. He had significant concerns over a potentially very large fine and a possible licence suspension, as he had only one demerit point remaining on his licence. The client had been a truck driver for 19 years and was financially supporting not only himself and his wife, but several members of his extended family. A suspension of his licence would have meant the termination of his employment. Anna advised the client to complete a traffic offenders’ program, invest in digital log-book tracking assistance and gather extensive materials in relation to his workplace training and fatigue management strategies. At court Anna entered a plea of guilty on behalf of the client and then made extensive submissions about the particular circumstances of this offending and the multiple steps our client had taken to make amends and ensure such an oversight never happened again. There is often confusion over required rest time and maximum working hours for heavy vehicle drivers, as these times are calculated over any 24-hour period, not a fixed midnight-midnight interval. The court accepted that a deviation from the usual routine and unforeseen delays had led our client to make a genuine mistake. The court further accepted that he was genuinely remorseful and had clearly learnt from the incident. The court was ultimately persuaded to deal with this matter by way of a conditional release order without conviction. In the context of a traffic matter, the effect of this is that no fine or demerit points are imposed for the offence. The client was very relieved to avoid a large fine, keep his licence and consequently maintain his employment.

Our client was a 34-year-old male who had been charged with one count of sexually touching a person without consent. This offence has a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Our client approached Lamont Law seeking advice over whether he should plead guilty or not guilty to the matter. The client was also anxious about the prospects of imprisonment given the serious nature of the charge. He also generally held concerns about the impact of a conviction of this nature on his ability to obtain a ‘Working with Children’s Check’ and to travel overseas. After reviewing the facts and accompanying CCTV footage, our criminal defence lawyer, Anna, explained to the client all the elements of this offence and what the police are required to prove. With guidance, the client made the decision to enter a plea of guilty based on the circumstances but contest the specific factual allegations which described more serious offending behaviour than he believed had occurred. Anna proposed careful and considered amendments to the facts, which would noticeably reduce the objective seriousness of our client’s offending behaviour. These proposed amendments were accepted by police and the matter was able to proceed quickly to finalisation, rather than waiting close to 12 months for a contested facts hearing. Our client was also advised to prepare a set of compelling subjective materials to demonstrate how out of character his behaviour was and the actions he had taken since to rectify and make amends. At sentence Anna made compelling submissions about a combination of unplanned circumstances that had led to the offence and which were unlikely to occur again. She also emphasised the client’s immediate display of remorse, apologies to the victim and efforts to learn from the incident. The court was ultimately persuaded to deal with the matter by way of a conditional release order without conviction. The only condition under this order was for our client to not commit any further criminal offences for a 2-year period. He maintained a clean criminal record and was very relieved.

Our client was a 40-year-old female charged with common assault in a domestic violence context. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and a $5500 fine. The facts of the matter were that our client had become engaged in a verbal argument with her partner which escalated to a short physical altercation wherein she pulled his hair and dug her nails into his chest. Our client made contact with Lamont Law several days before her matter to seek advice about how best to prepare and the prospects of avoiding conviction. Our criminal defence lawyer, Anna, was able to offer guidance about the best ways to demonstrate remorse and insight to the court. With a quick turn-around on preparing subjective material for the court, Anna made compelling submissions about the circumstances that led to this offence, why these actions were highly out of character for our client and why she was a person deserving of leniency. The court was persuaded to exercise its discretion and not record a conviction in this matter. The matter was dealt with by way of a conditional release order without conviction. This was of significant relief given the nature of her employment and future career aspirations would have been adversely affected by a matter of violence on her criminal record.

We represented two co-accused in this matter, both male, aged 35 and 38 years old. Both were accused of being involved in a violent neighbourhood dispute and charged with ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm while in company’ and being ‘armed with intent to commit an indictable offence’. The maximum penalties for these charges were 7 years imprisonment, each. The alleged facts of the matter were that one of our clients had grabbed the complainant around the throat after engaging in brief argument outside the complainant’s property. The complainant then retrieved several planks of wood in attempt to defend himself. It was further alleged that both of our clients have followed the complainant, taken the planks of wood off him and assaulted him, causing visible injuries to the complainant’s back. Our two clients engaged Lamont Law on the basis that the allegations were largely false and did not accurately reflect the incident that had occurred. Both had real and pressing concerns about the impact of criminal convictions on their current employment and private endeavours. Pleas of not guilty were entered to all charges for both clients and the police served a brief of evidence. The matter was then set down for a hearing. In the interim, our criminal defence lawyer, Anna, wrote extensive representations to the police detailing the issues with the police brief of evidence, consistency of the defendant’s account with the CCTV and the legitimate argument of self-defence to be raised by both clients. Anna indicated that both clients were willing to consent to an Apprehended Personal Violence Order if the police agreed to withdraw all criminal charges. These representations were accepted and the matter was able to be re-listed and finalised many months before it was due to go to hearing. This resolution meant that neither client was required to go on the stand to provide evidence. It also meant they did not face the risk of being found guilty and having criminal convictions recorded for serious matters of violence.