Criminal Defence Firm of the Year in Australia - CorporateINTL Global Awards 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 & 2015
Australian Criminal Law Firm of the Year - 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 & 2015 Global Law Experts Awards
Law Firm of the Year, Criminal Defence, Australia - 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 & 2016 M & A Global Awards
Criminal Defence Law Firm of the Year - Australia - 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020 Leaders in Law Global Awards
Best Criminal Law Firm in Australia - 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 Global 100 Awards
Criminal Defence Law Firm of the Year in Australia, 2023 & 2022
Legal Services, Finalist - 2023 True Local Australian Small Business Champion Awards
Best Criminal Lawyers in Sydney & Best Traffic Lawyers in Sydney 2023. 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018 & 2017 - Three Best Rated
Best Traffic & Criminal Law Firm in Sydney - 2022 APAC Insider Legal Awards
Criminal Defence Law Firm of the Year, Australia, Client Care Law Firm of the Year - 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 & 2016 ACQ5 Law Awards
Criminal Defence Law firm of the Year - Australia - 2021 Lawyers Worldwide Awards
Most Trusted Criminal Law Specialists - Australia - 2020, 2019 & 2018 AI Global Excellence Awards
Criminal Defence Law Firm of the Year - Australia - 2020 Lawyers Worldwide Law Awards
Best Criminal Law Firm, Australia - 2019, 2018 & 2017 Lawyer International Global Awards
Criminal Defence Law Firm of the Year in Australia - 2019, 2018 & 2017 Finance Monthly Legal Awards
Criminal Law Firm of the Year, Australia - 2019, 2018 & 2017 Corporate Insider Business Excellence Awards
Most Outstanding Criminal Law Firm - Australia - 2019, 2018 & 2017 Corporate Vision Excellence Awards
Criminal Defence Law Firm of the Year Australia- 2018 & 2017 Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards
Criminal Defence Law Firm of the Year - 2018 & 2017 Corporate Live Wire Innovation & Excellence Awards
Criminal Defence Firm of the Year Australia - 2018, 2017 & 2016 Finance Monthly Global Awards
Leading Criminal Defence Lawyer of the Year, Ugur Nedim - 2018 APAC Insider Law Awards
Industry Leader in the Legal Sector - 2018 Finance Monthly CEO Awards
Best Criminal Law Firm - 2017 & 2016 Apac Insider Australian Enterprise Awards
Criminal Law Accredited Specialist - Law Society of NSW
Sydney’s Best Criminal & Traffic Defence Lawyers
No criminal law firm in Sydney has achieved a track record of success comparable to Sydney Criminal Lawyers.
Our Principal, Mr Ugur Nedim, has decades of experience as a leading criminal defence lawyer, has been recognised by the Law Society of New South Wales as an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist since 2005 and has built a team of exceptional, vastly experienced specialist criminal defence lawyers to provide the highest level of service to our valued clients.
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 Sydney City Offices
Our head offices are located at Suite 503 / 267 Castlereagh Street, Sydney (reception) and also Suite 507 (lawyer offices) on level 5 of the Museum Towers Building, which is across the road from the Downing Centre Courthouse.
The nearest train station is Museum, which has a Castlereagh Street exit just across the road from our offices. Alternatively, Town Hall station is a five minute walk away.
If you are driving in for an appointment, we offer free visitor parking within our building. You can also use visitor parking free of charge on the day of your court case.
If you have a court date we offer a free first conference with an experienced criminal or traffic defence lawyer who will explain your options and the best way forward.
So call us anytime on (02) 9261 8881 to book your conference with Australia’s most awarded criminal law firm.
About Downing Centre Local Court
Downing Centre Local Court is on levels 4 and 5 of the Downing Centre courthouse, which is located at 143-147 Liverpool Street, Sydney.
The types of criminal and traffic cases heard in Downing Centre Local Court include:
- Drink driving, driving whilst suspended or disqualified, and other traffic cases
- Drug possession and small drug supply cases
- Common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm cases
- Apprehended violence orders (AVOs)
- Fraud, larceny and property offences
- Indecent assault and child abuse material cases
- Firearms offences
- Bail applications, sentencing hearings, section 32 applications, committal hearings, and defended hearings
About Downing Centre District Court
Downing Centre District Court is on the lower ground to 3rd floor of the Downing Centre courthouse.
The types of criminal cases heard in Downing Centre District Court include:
- Drug cases including supply, manufacture, cultivation and importation
- Assault and wounding-type cases
- Break and enter, and robbery cases
- Substantial fraud and property offences
- Sexual assault and other sex offences
- Sentencing hearings, appeals against severity and conviction, bail applications and trials.
About Central Local Court
Central Local Court is located at 99 Liverpool Street, Sydney.
The court deals with a large number of bail applications, committal hearings, defended hearings, sentencing hearings and a range of other matters.
It is the court where many serious offences start, before they progress to the higher courts such as the District or Supreme Court.
About the Supreme Court of NSW
There are a number of Supreme Courts across the Sydney CBD, including:
- The Law Courts Building, Queen’s Square, 184 Phillip Street, Sydney. This building houses the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal where appeals against many decisions in the District and Supreme Courts are heard. It is also where the main court registries are located.
- King Street Courthouse, Crn King and Elizabeth Streets, Sydney. This is where most Supreme Court bail applications are heard.
- Darlinghurst Courthouse, Taylor Square, Sydney. This is where lengthy criminal trials often take place.
More information on Sydney
If you are located near Sydney or need a professional lawyer to represent you at a Sydney Court, find more information on the local area below or call us 24/7 on (02) 9261 8881.
SYDNEY CITY OFFICE
Our client is a 40 year old man from Greystanes in greater Western Sydney.
He lived with his older brother and elderly mother until her death in September 2017.
On 23 August 2017, our client and his brother called an ambulance for their mother, explaining that she had become bedridden and that her food and water intake had decreased.
Following admission to hospital, our client’s mother was found to have a number of bed sores which had become infected. That infection subsequently led to sepsis and our client’s mother passed away 10 days after being conveyed to hospital.
Following the death of their mother, our client and his brother were charged with her manslaughter. The Crown alleged that they had been criminally negligent by failing to properly care for her, and that their failure to provide care caused her death. Both our client and his brother pleaded not guilty.
We successfully reached agreement with the Crown to have the trial heard by judge alone.
The Crown case was that as a result of assuming responsibility for the care of their mother, the brothers were required to exercise reasonable care for her health and nourishment.
It was alleged that in the month before the mother’s admission to hospital, the brothers negligently breached that duty by failing to provide proper care and hygiene for their mother’s bed sores, by neglecting to obtain medical treatment and not providing adequate nutrition and hydration.
It was further alleged that these omissions caused the 72-year old mother’s death because the infection, that ultimately proved fatal, entered her bloodstream through the bed sores.
Our client and his brother did not deny owing a duty of care to their mother. They did, however, deny any negligence in that care and disputed that the infection resulted from any breach on their part.
During to course of the case, our defence team obtained materials which suggested that the mother had full cognitive capacity, and that she had repeatedly refused medical care in the years leading up to her death.
Given the nature and extent of the material obtained, and our successful cross-examination of the Crown’s medical experts – who conceded in court that there were refusals to receive medical care – our defence team made the forensic decision not to call our client to the witness stand.
Rather, our strong position at the end of the Crown case led to our decision to call only one defence witness, an elderly gentleman who had known the lady for several years through their interactions at the local church. The man’s evidence strongly corroborated our instructions and the medical evidence regarding the mother’s history of refusing medical treatment.
The presiding judge found that the Crown had failed to establish that the mother suffered from dementia or lacked mental capacity prior to her admission to hospital. His Honour further found there was no evidence of long-term nutritional deficiency, which was again consistent with our client’s account that he provided his mother with all her meals.
The judge additional found there was no evidence that our client “knew at any time prior to [his mother] being hospitalised how medically significant it was” and that the Crown failed to establish the brothers “exhibited less than reasonable care in failing to procure medical assistance…”
His Honour agreed that the mother was “a conscious patient with full legal capacity.”
He therefore rejected the Crown’s case, and found that a reasonable person in our client’s position should not be taken to possess the medical knowledge and expertise required to care for a person suffering from bed sores.
Our client was found not guilty for those reasons.
Our client is a 26 year medical science student, with a part time job dropping-off medical supplies to various locations.
He has a wife and young child.
He was detected by police driving at a speed greater than 45 km/h, being 162km/h in an 80km/h zone (ie 82km/h over the speed limit).
Police pulled him over and issued him with a police suspension notice for a period of 6 months.
Despite having a number of other driving offences on his record, our client was adamant that he wished to appeal the suspension.
We assisted him to prepare a range of materials, including character references and a letter of apology – which outlined his need for a licence for work and family commitments, including taking his elderly parents to medical appointments.
The test to lift or vary an immediate police suspension is onerous, requiring the demonstration of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
However, after making extensive verbal submissions to the presiding magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court, Her Honour saw fit to reduce the suspension from 6 months to 1 month – which was backdated to the time of the suspension.
This meant he could immediately reapply for his licence and meet his personal and employment obligations.
Our client is 31 year old man from Canley Vale in Sydney.
He was employed as a Premium Baccarat Croupier at The Star Casino.
Two men attended casino on several occasions over a 10 day period to play Premium Baccarat on the table our client was servicing.
The casino became suspicious of the activity on the table after observing the betting patterns of the two men, after each of their intermittent large bets allegedly invariably returned wins.
The casino arranged for the examination of CCTV footage which, it claimed, showed our client raising a few of the cards from the top and bottom of the deck and thereby revealing their values, then making hand signals to indicate whether or not to make a large bet.
The casino reported the information to the police and all three men were charged with 22 counts of fraud under section 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 and one count of participate in criminal group.
The total amount allegedly defrauded was more than $3.3 million.
Our client was adamant that alleged offences did not occur and his behaviour was consistent with the rules of the game.
As the DPP only served the allegedly ‘incriminating’ footage, we subpoenaed all footage of our client dealing over the course of his employment, painstakingly viewed all of that footage and prepared extensive material to suggest our client:
(a) on several occasions placed his hand on the side which the prosecution suggested would trigger a ‘large bet’, but that action did not result in such a bet being placed,
(b) our client’s style of dealing was to fan cards, and
(c) there was plentiful evidence that our client did not view cards when he dealt in that fashion.
We also subpoenaed extensive material from the casino to the effect that the manner of dealing was not against any rules or regulations.
The matter ultimately proceeded to a 7-week jury trial in Downing Centre District Court.
During the extensive cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, our team was able to systematically produce evidence which communicated the actual state of affairs to the jury.
Moreover, after all of the prosecution evidence had been given, our defence team tendered carefully drafted legal submissions to the sentencing judge in the absence of the jury to the effect that the prosecution evidence was incapable of establishing the essential element of ‘deception’ – as no deceived party had been identified. We asked the judge to direct an acquittal on that basis.
The submission was powerful and persuasive given recent decisions by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to the effect that a deceived party must be identified in order for an offence of fraud to be established.
The submission appeared to have caught the prosecution by surprise, as the Crown prosecutor tried to argue that the deceived party was The Star Casino. That submission was clearly inconsistent with the NSWCCA decisions which require a particular person or party to be actively deceived and a causal link to be established between the deception and financial advantage derived.
The judge agreed with our submissions and directed the jury to acquit each of the co-accused on all charges.
Our client is a 30 year old Truck Driver from the South Coast of NSW.
Police observed a car that was double parked in the middle of street in the Sydney CBD, which they claimed is ‘well known for drug use and supply’
They conducted a vehicle enquiry through their Mobipol system to obtain the registration particulars of the car.
The enquiry suggested the vehicle was registered to a family member of an organised crime group, and that the member was previously convicted of drug supply.
Police approached the vehicle and saw four individuals inside. The owner and his associate were in the front seats, and our client and a television presenter in the back.
Police questioned each of the occupants, and our client disclosed that he was in possession of a quantity of cocaine. They searched our client and located a large resealable bag of cocaine down the front of his pants, two small bags of cocaine in his wallet, nearly $5,000 in cash and two mobile telephones.
They arrested and conveyed our client to the police station, where he participated in an interview and made certain admissions.
One of the phones in our client’s possession contained messages indicative of drug supply. Our client told police that this phone did not belong to him, but to one of the other occupants.
Our client was charged with drug supply due to the quantity of drugs in the large resealable bag and contents of the phone messages, and with proceeds of crime for the cash found on him.
Our defence team undertook a considerable amount of work establishing there was insufficient evidence to prove ownership of the phone and gathering evidence regarding duress.
Duress is when a person commits an offence because threats are made against them to such an extent that a reasonable person in their position would comply.
The case ultimately proceeded to a jury trial in Downing Centre District Court.
Once evidence of duress was raised, the prosecution made submissions that a serious threat of violence could not be established as our client was aware of the presence of police nearby. It was further submitted that the text messages suggesting supply were from our client, as other evidence suggested he was indeed the sender of those transmissions.
Our cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, including expert witnesses, supported by documents gathered by the defence completely defeated the prosecution’s ability to negative the defence of duress. It was a systematic and complete dismantling of the prosecution case which meant we did not need to put our client on the witness stand to testify and face cross examination.
In the result, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty for both charges, and the alleged proceeds of crime was refunded to our client.
Our client is a 28 year old residing in Victoria.
He was charged with one count of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug precursor under section 307.11 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
A joint strike force was set up by the New South Wales Police State Crime Command Drug & Firearms Squad and the Australian Border Force (ABF) to investigate the importation and supply of prohibited drugs.
An international consignment sent from China to Sydney was intercepted by the ABF and examined.
The consignment consisted of 5 pallets holding 50 cardboard boxes which, in turn, contained a total of 60,000 filled with 300 kilograms of ephedrine – a substance used to make amphetamines.
The ephedrine was removed and the consignment reconstructed to resemble its original appearance. It was released and monitored by the SCC Drug & Firearm Squad and ABF.
The consignment was then delivered to the addressed warehouse, which contained storage units.
Our client was alleged to have attended the warehouse where the consignment was delivered and captured on the CCTV inspecting the highlighters by opening a number of boxes, shaking them, inspecting them and taking photographs. He was also alleged to have been filmed taking one of the highlighters from the storage unit.
He was alleged to have travelled from Victoria to Sydney months beforehand and rented the storage unit.
He was ultimately arrested and participated in an electronically recorded interview, where he was alleged to have made certain admissions.
His family contacted our office on the day of his arrest, and we promptly attended to him in custody to take instructions.
The next day in court, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution vehemently opposed our bail application on a number of grounds, including the seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prosecution case, the allegation our client was a flight risks, that he played a significant role in a sophisticated enterprise and so on, which they submitted made our client an unacceptable bail risk.
We carefully scrutinised the material we were able to gather the previous day from police and on the morning of court, and made extensive submissions to the effect that the prosecution case was nowhere near as strong as made to appear in the court attendance notice.
We obtained various materials from our client’s family members in relation to his living arrangement and a small security.
In the result, the magistrate in Central Local Court granted bail on strict conditions; however, His Honour did agree with our submission that our client be permitted to travel to his home in Victoria and reside there.
We intend to ultimately make written submissions for the withdrawal of the proceedings.
Our client is a 20 year old teaching student who was charged with ‘making a false representation resulting in a police investigation’. She made a complaint of sexual assault against her short term partner, who was many years her senior.
After her initial complaint to police, she indicated that she did not want to attend court because she did not want to face the trauma of reliving the incident.
When she refused to give a further statement clarifying various matters, police formed the view that she was lying and charged her with making a false complaint.
The case ultimately proceeded to a defended hearing in Downing Centre Local Court, where our lawyers were able to establish that police had failed to adequately investigate her initial complaint – failing to follow up leads or to gather any forensic or other evidence from the incident scene. They further failed to make sufficient inquiries into her alleged false complaint.
The Magistrate remarked that there was insufficient evidence against our client and found her not guilty.
We then made an application for costs against police. His Honour found that the investigation was conducted in an unreasonable and improper manner, awarding full legal costs in our client’s favour.
Our client is a 26-year-old member of the Australia Defence Force.
He was charged with 5 offences of possessing explosives and prohibited weapons.
He was suspended without pay from the Defence Force pending the outcome of the charges.
Once he contacted our firm, we immediately commenced negotiations which resulted in police withdrawing 3 of the charges.
We negotiated significant amendments to the police ‘fact sheet’ which more accurately reflected the circumstances of the offending. Our client then entered a plea of guilty to the remaining 2 charges.
In Downing Centre Local Court, we presented information about the circumstances leading up to the offending conduct, our client’s personal circumstances and the effect that a criminal conviction would have upon him.
We also called his father to give oral evidence on our client’s behalf.
Recognising the very serious nature of the charges - including the fact that one of the offences carries a maximum penalty of 14-years imprisonment - we made extensive and detailed oral submissions seeking leniency from the Magistrate.
His Honour was ultimately persuaded to grant our client a 12-month good behaviour bond under section 10 – which means he avoids a criminal conviction altogether.
He hopes to recommence his position and move forward with his life.
Our client is a 33-year-old employee at Woolworths, who faced several sexual assault allegations brought by a female work colleague. From the very start, our client vehemently denied ever having any sexual or inappropriate relations with the complainant.
16 separate sexual assault charges were brought by the prosecution, and our client was intent on defending all of them.
He saw another criminal law firm in Sydney who advised him that he would be found guilty if he defended the charges. Our client showed us a copy of the written correspondence to that effect. We disagreed with that firm's advice, as we quickly ascertained that there were glaring inconsistencies in a number of the complainant's statements, parts of which simply did not make sense.
The matter was ultimately listed for a jury trial in Downing Centre District Court, and the prosecution case centred around the complainant’s numerous statements to police.
Our defence team worked intensely to gather a range of materials via various lines of inquiry, including subpoenas, and prepared witnesses statements which discredited the complainant’s claims. That material was crucial in establishing the alleged incidents could not have occurred.
After extensive cross examination of the complainant at trial, the prosecution was left in a position where it was unable to establish a ‘prima facie’ case against our client for 10 of the charges. A 'prima facie' case is one where the evidence is capable of persuading a properly instructed jury that the defendant is guilty. The prosecution's failure to meet this test led the Judge to direct the jury to return verdicts of not guilty for those 10 charges part-way through the trial.
The defence then presented our case, by the end of which it was clear the complainant had fabricated the allegations for her own purposes.
After just 40 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty for the remaining 6 charges.
Our three clients are all Indonesian nationals who were crew members aboard a ship headed for Australia.
The ship’s cargo-hold was altered to increase its capacity, containing a speed boat and dozens of ‘Prada’ bags filled with a total of over 600 kilograms of heroin.
The ship anchored approximately two kilometres from Australian shores, and the speedboat was ferried back and forth unloading the heroin-filled bags onto the mainland.
Unknown to the ship’s captain and crew, Australian authorities had been monitoring the operation and ultimately arrested all on board the ship.
The captain and officers were all convicted at trial. They were represented by other lawyers.
Six crew members faced a separate trial, with our team representing three of the men in Downing Centre District Court.
We advised our clients not to give evidence after the close of the prosecution case at trial, as the state of the evidence was that knowledge or recklessness had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They were ultimately found ‘not guilty’ of all charges.
The remaining three crew members - represented by other lawyers - each testified in court. They were questioned at length and ultimately found guilty. In our view, it was a significant strategic error to have exposed the men to cross-examination, given the weaknesses in the evidence at the close of the prosecution case.
Our client is a 39-year-old computer consultant and family man from Sydney’s western suburbs.
The family’s sleeping arrangements were that our client would sleep in a bedroom with his 7-year-old daughter, while his wife slept in another bedroom with their 4-month-old daughter.
It was not in dispute that on the day in question, our client and his daughter had been asleep when our client awoke and put his hands around his daughter’s throat and squeezed, preventing her from breathing. The child was eventually able to scream for her mother, who came to the room and rescued her.
Police were called and our client said, “I just tried to murder my daughter”. They asked “what do you mean by murder?”, to which he replied “I tried to kill her”. He further admitted trying to strangle her to death.
His wife told police he may be suffering from schizophrenia.
Police charged our client with three offences, the most serious of which was ‘intent to murder’, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
The law states that a person is not guilty of a crime if they were “labouring a defect of reason”, such as suffering from auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs which caused them to be unaware that their actions were wrong. This is often referred to as the 'McNaughton defence'.
We referred our client to a prominent psychiatrist who confirmed the diagnosis of schizophrenia, and a number of matters relevant to his defence.
We requested withdrawal of all three charges on that basis, but the DPP refused to withdraw all of them, and the matter proceeded to a judge-alone trial in Downing Centre District Court.
Many criminal law firms brief 'wig and gown' barristers when serious cases are set-down for trial, but we are often able to avoid this due to the vast courtroom experience of our specialist lawyers - all of whom are Senior Lawyers with years of criminal defence experience. Our firm’s ability to independently represent clients to a very high standard in extremely serious cases sets us apart from many other law firms, and can save clients vast amounts in legal costs.
Our Senior Managing Lawyer conducted the trial independently, and our client was found not guilty of all charges.
After a person is acquitted due to mental illness, the judge must then decide whether they should be detained in a prison hospital, mental health facility hospital, or released with or without conditions.
Our senior lawyer was able to convince the judge that our client should be released on condition that he comply with a mental health treatment plan involving prescribed medication and regular consultations with his psychiatrist and psychologist. He is now getting the help he desperately needs, while attempting to mend his family relationship and move forward with his life.