No criminal law firm in Chatswood has achieved a track record of success comparable to Sydney Criminal Lawyers.
Our Principal, Mr Ugur Nedim, has over 20 years of experience in criminal defence and has been recognised by the Law Society of New South Wales as an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist since 2005.
Only a small proportion of criminal lawyers are recognised as Accredited Specialists, and Mr Nedim has consistently maintained this highly coveted certification for 15 years.
Mr Nedim has defended over two dozen murder trials achieving outstanding success, has represented clients in the most serious drug importation and supply cases in Australia (including the nation’s largest ever heroin importation case, where all three of his clients were found not guilty, while the remaining three co-accused – represented by other criminal law firms – were found guilty), dozens of serious sexual assault cases, complex fraud cases, armed robberies and many other serious and complex criminal matters.
Our law firm consistently manages to have cases withdrawn when other firms advise clients to plead guilty, and to achieve not guilty verdicts where the prosecution evidence appears at first instance to be insurmountable.
These results are achieved through developing and implementing effective defence strategies, harnessing our network of experts in a range of fields and fighting for positive outcomes.
Our Chatswood offices are located at 23 Daisy Street, Chatswood, where conferences can be arranged by appointment.
Our criminal and traffic defence lawyers represent clients at nearby courts including Hornsby Local Court and Downing Centre Local and District Court on a regular basis, and are familiar with the magistrates who preside in those courts.
We consistently achieve outstanding results for both criminal and traffic cases, ranging from drug possession, drink driving and AVO to complex and serious criminal charges.
If you are going to court, we offer a free first conference with an experienced defence lawyer who will explain your options and the best way forward.
So call us anytime on (02) 9261 8881 to book your conference at our Chatswood office with Australia’s most awarded criminal law firm.CHATSWOOD OFFICE
Our client is a 36-year old tradesman from North Western Sydney.
He was at a hotel in the Sydney CBD when he entered into a conversation with a 25-year old female.
Both had already been drinking, and they drank a number of further alcoholic drinks together, before catching a taxi together to our client’s apartment.
While there, the female exchanged text messages with a female friend to the effect that everything was ok and for her friend not to worry.
The next morning, the complainant sent further text messages to her friend to the effect that she had been forced into having sexual intercourse.
She left our client’s home, met her friend and they both attended a police station where a formal complaint of sexual assault was made. In the complaint, the woman alleged that the pair were drinking on a couch at our client’s apartment when he forced himself on her and had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. She claimed she had stated ‘no’ several times and attempted to ‘fight off’ our client.
The complainant attended a hospital during which an examination was performed and samples taken.
Police attended the home of our client several days later where they arrested him, placed him in custody and conducted an interview during which our client was adamant the sexual intercourse was consensual.
Police nevertheless charged our client with one count of sexual intercourse without consent (also known as ‘sexual assault’) under section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and one count of detain for advantage under section 86 of the same Act.
They refused him bail at the police station and we made a successful application in court the very next day.
Based on our client's instructions, we quickly subpoenaed CCTV footage from the hotel and from our client’s apartment complex, and managed to track down and obtain in-car footage from the taxi they took to our client's premises– all of which were highly suggestive of the complainant being a willing participant in the events leading up to the pair entering our client’s unit.
We also relied on photographs of our client and the complainant which showed no evidence of any struggle.
We wrote detailed ‘representations’ to the DPP – who eventually took the case over from the police – to the effect that neither of the offences could be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the admissible evidence available. Representations are a formal letter requesting the withdrawal of charges.
We followed up our representations with extensive negotiations with the DPP, after which both of the charges against our client were withdrawn, saving our client the stress, expense and potential risk of a lengthy District Court jury trial.
Our client is a 24-year old overseas student.
Police alleged that he and 7 others were involved in Supplying a Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug and Participating in a Joint Criminal Enterprise.
The suspects were alleged to have communicated through coded messages on their mobile telephones.
All were charged and brought before Manly Local Court.
For the purposes of bail, the offences are ‘show cause’ offences, which means the defence bears the onus of establishing the defendant does not pose an ‘unacceptable risk’ to the community, and that imprisonment would therefore be unjustified.
The prosecution strenuously opposed bail for all 7 defendants on the basis of the alleged strength of the prosecution case and likelihood of a full-time custodial sentence in the event of a conviction.
Each of the defendants had similar evidence against them and were alleged to be at similar levels in the hierarchy of the enterprise.
However, our client (and two others) were at a significant disadvantage because they were from overseas and had limited links to the local community – which makes it more difficult to achieve bail.
Our defence team got to work and quickly prepared material addressing a number of the bail concerns, including the risk of flight. We took detailed instructions with a view to disputing the prosecution’s submissions regarding the strength of the prosecution case.
By the time we were ready to run our client’s bail application, all 7 co-accused had been refused bail.
We presented material and made detailed verbal submissions regarding the law.
The submissions included reference to the pivotal NSW Supreme Court cases of R v Melmeth  and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal case of DPP v Mawad , which made a number of findings in respect of the meaning of ‘show cause’, including the applicable test.
Among other things, the cases establish that ‘exceptional circumstances’ do not necessarily need to be shown to overcome the ‘show cause’ hurdle – which is a common but incorrect assumption amongst practitioners. Rather, a combination of factors including proposed bail conditions can meet the test, and alleviate any bail concerns.
The presiding magistrate was convinced and saw fit to grant bail on strict conditions, including daily reporting, surrender or passport and non-association with co-accused and witnesses in the case.
The outcome demonstrates that with the right knowledge, meticulous preparation and persuasive presentation, bail can be achieved in ‘show cause’ cases regardless of the seriousness of the allegations and the findings against co-accused.
The merits of each case must be assessed independently, and it is important to engage specialist criminal defence lawyers who are knowledgeable, thorough and persuasive.
Our client is a 46 year old Sales Executive living in Frenchs Forest, Sydney.
He was pulled over for a random breath test just after 9pm on a Friday night on Blackbutts Road, Frenchs Forest where he registered a blood alcohol reading of 0.100.
He told police that he had been drinking red wine at his home from 6pm to 9pm and was on his way to a friend's place. He was then charged with 'mid-range drink driving'.
There was nothing particularly remarkable about the facts of the case.
Our legal team ensured that he took the right steps in the lead-up to the court date; by helping him with his apology letter and character references, and referring him to counselling.
The matter came before Manly Local Court where two defendants who registered very similar readings (0.09 and 0.115) both received criminal convictions and licence disqualifications because, as the Magistrate put it, "the reading is too high". This was despite it being their first drink driving offence and both having a strong need for a driver licence.
Our client's case then came before the very same Magistrate, who was ultimately persuaded to allow our client to keep his licence and avoid a criminal conviction despite the reading.
It is an example of how careful preparation and persuasive presentation in court can make all the difference when it comes to the result in drink driving cases.
The Presiding Magistrate in Hornsby Local Court has dismissed the AVO brought against our client by his neighbour, and then ordered him to pay our client's legal costs.
Our client and the applicant are next door neighbours in the northern suburbs of Sydney. They have been engaged in various disputes for over 4 years.
The applicant alleged that our client had "harassed and intimidated" him and his partner "at least 15 times" over a one-month period by "prying" on them, "making videos" and "using abusive language" both in-person and in text messages.
Our defence team prepared transcripts of all text messages, obtained relevant videos and arranged transcripts of those videos, gathered photographs and prepared witness statements - all of which undermined the applicant's version of events.
The case ultimately reached a defended hearing wherein it became abundantly clear during the applicant's lengthy cross-examination that he was primarily responsible for escalating the disputes, not our client.
The Presiding Magistrate was scathing in her criticism of the applicant as she dismissed his case and ordered him to pay our client's legal costs in full.
The Magistrate in Manly Local Court has allowed our 48 year old client from Fairfield to avoid a conviction and a licence disqualification despite driving whilst suspended twice and also running a red light.
Our client has a lengthy traffic record including: speeding by more than 45km/h three times, speeding by more than 30km/h twice, negligent driving, not give particulars after crash and several others.
He also has criminal convictions.
He was on a demerit point suspension when he drove his car towards his workplace at Cromer.
Police observed him drive through a red light, pulled him over and advised him that his licence was suspended.
He admitted knowing that he was suspended and that he ran the red light.
He was then charged with 'Driving Whilst Suspended' and the red light offence.
Despite this, he drove again a short time later and was again pulled over and charged with a second count of Driving Whilst Suspended.
This meant that he was facing a 3 year licence disqualification and hefty fines, which would have caused him to lose his job as a machine operator and delivery driver.
However, our defence team assisted him to prepare his case thoroughly and presented it strongly in court.
The Magistrate was ultimately persuaded to grant him 'Section 10s' for all of the offences - which means that he avoids a further criminal record, avoids a licence disqualification and also avoids fines.
He now has his licence back and can keep working and looking after his family.
Police have withdrawn the charge of Reckless Wounding and AVO (domestic violence related) against our 26 year old client after our defence team prepared two detailed sets of written submissions requesting withdrawal and pushed relentlessly for the case to be dropped.
The charge and AVO arose from an incident on 17th May 2014 when our client stabbed her partner in the leg with a 20cm long kitchen knife causing a large open wound requiring hospitalisation and sutures.
Our client maintained that her actions were undertaken in self defence after her partner threw a mug and then advanced upon her.
The case was scheduled to go to a defended hearing in Hornsby Local Court, but police have decided to drop the charge and the AVO rather than pursue the case in court.
Our client is now spared from the stress and expense of defended proceedings.
It is yet another example of 'domestic violence-related' charges being dropped through hard work and perseverance.
The Presiding Magistrate in Hornsby Local Court dismissed drug possession charges against our 21 year old client from Wahroonga who was stopped and searched in a Pennant Hills carpark.
Police approached our client claiming he appeared to be 'acting suspiciously' by standing outside his car with a friend in an unlit area.
As usual, police alleged that our client appeared 'nervous' and 'agitated' and that he could not adequately explain why he was there.
They searched him and found 4 ecstacy tablets and a small amount of cannabis in resealable bags in his pocket.
The Magistrate found that this was not enough to ground a 'suspicion on reasonable grounds' and ruled the search to be illegal.
The evidence was then excluded and both charges were dismissed.
The Magistrate in Hornsby Local Court upheld our 36 year old client's court election against a LIDAR-detected ticket for speeding by more than 15km per hour on Pennant Hills Road, Pennant Hills.
Police issued the ticket based upon a reading from the hand-held device just after 3.45pm on a weekday.
Our client was adamant that he was not speeding and wished to dispute the ticket.
A photo served upon our office shortly before the hearing date supported our client's instructions that there was heavy traffic at the time and it could have been another vehicle that was speeding.
He gave evidence to that effect on the witness stand, and the Presiding Magistrate ultimately accepted our submissions that the reading could have been for a vehicle that was in the lane beside our client's or could otherwise have been inaccurate due to the number of other vehicles on the road at the time.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® convinced police to withdraw charges of 'armed with intent to commit indictable offence' and 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' after submitting detailed written submissions on the weakness of the police case and pushing for withdrawal.
The case involved our 44 year old client allegedly making death threats against her partner then slashing him with a 30cm kitchen knife.
All charges and the associated Apprehended Violence Order ('AVO') were withdrawn and dismissed in Manly Local Court.
In Hornsby Local Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® persuaded the Magistrate not to convict our 45 year old Chatswood client who smashed the window and assaulted another driver in a 'road rage' incident, leaving his face cut & bleeding.
Our client was of previous good character and having great difficulties in his life leading up to the incident. He was concerned that a criminal conviction would have prevented him from obtaining further employment in his chosen profession.
I am so glad that I decided to go with Sydney Criminal Lawyers, Rasheen Mahmodian…
SCL is the best law firm in Sydney. Mr Fahim Khan handled my case very…
Thank you to Fahim & Patrick for their professionalism and expert advice which lead to…
Sydney Criminal Lawyers' Fred Cao is not only professional but also experienced in traffic related…