Criminal and Traffic Lawyers for Parramatta District Court

Our client is a 51 year old owner of a security company who lives in South-West Sydney. He was turning right at an intersection when his car collided with an oncoming car driven by a 20-year old P-plater. Police attended the scene, determined that our client was at-fault and later issued him with a future court attendance notice for negligent driving not occasioning death or grievous bodily harm. He self-represented him Bankstown Local Court, where he was found guilty on the basis that he failed to keep a proper lookout for the oncoming vehicle, fined $1,500 and disqualified from driving for 12 months. He then saw us for advice and, after taking detailed instructions, it became evident there was a reasonable possibility the magistrate had made an error by finding him guilty. We then filed an ‘all grounds appeal’ and obtained the transcript of evidence, which supported a reasonable inference that the oncoming vehicle was speeding and that our client was indeed keeping a lookout but could not have avoided the collision. The appeal ultimately came before Parramatta District Court where we tendered detailed written submissions outlining the law and the fact that the evidence did not support a finding of guilt, especially given the absence of a prosecution expert and the conflicting evidence. After making additional submissions, His Honour agreed that the prosecution did not prove its case to the required standard. He therefore upheld the appeal and quashed the conviction, fine and disqualification.

In Parramatta District Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a 'Section 10' ( no criminal record or licence disqualification) for a 38 year old Blacktown man who pleaded guilty to a 3rd drink driving charge was dealt with under ‘Section 10’ (i.e. without conviction, fine or disqualification).

The case was initially in Blacktown Local Court where the Presiding Magistrate had imposed a conviction, 12 months disqualification, an $800 fine and $76 court costs.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers® successfully appealed that decision and our client, who needs his licence for employment, can retain his job and continue to support his wife and two young children.

A 53 year old man from Canley Vale called our firm after he was convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 3 months prison in Liverpool Local Court when represented by another criminal law firm. He had pleaded 'not guilty' to 'armed with intent to commit an indictable offence', 'resisting arrest' and 'common assault'. He had prior convictions for assault and intimidation. The present charges arose when he allegedly ran at his neighbour with a large meat cleaver and swung it towards the man's head up to eight times, missing him by just centimetres, then pursuing him for a further 15 metres before the man got away. Police were called and struggled to arrest and detain him. His local court hearing lasted nearly a full day and he was found guilty. He called our firm approximately one week after he lodged an appeal against his conviction. In accordance with our practice, we obtained all 'transcripts' of the Local Court case - which contain everything said during the Local Court hearing. Transcripts are very important because appeals to the District Court against conviction (ie against a 'not guilty' verdict) are almost exclusively based upon what is contained in the Local Court transcripts. Our Defence Team reviewed the 'police brief of evidence' (which are the witness statements etc gathered by police earlier-on) and the transcripts, and quickly came to the view that his hearing was prepared and conducted poorly, and that his prospects of defeating the conviction were very slim. It also became abundantly clear that, due to the witness statements against him, his lawyers should have negotiated less-serious charges and advised him to plead guilty, rather than taking his case all the way to an expensive defended hearing. We provided our client with detailed and open advice about his prospects on appeal. That advice was essentially that we should focus on keeping him out of prison by pushing for a more lenient penalty (which is called a 'severity appeal') rather than trying to get the verdict of 'not guilty' overturned altogether (called a 'conviction appeal'). Our client accepted that advice and agreed to see a counsellor for 'anger management'. We met with him and his family several times in the lead-up to his court date. We gathered a range of favourable materials including a counselling report, employment records and various references. We argued his case in Parramatta District Court where we convinced the Judge to overturn the sentence of imprisonment, and to give him a 15 month 'suspended sentence' instead. This means that he stays out of prison and can get on with his life. Our client and his family were very pleased and relieved about the outcome.

In Parramatta District Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a 'section 10' (no conviction) for a 21 year old security guard who punched a soccer fan in the face resulting in a broken nose and extensive bruising.

The incident occurred during a tense match between the Western Wanderers and Sydney FC.

A patron ran onto the ground and security guards followed.

Our client attempted to jump over the fence onto the playing field to join the other guards, but felt the complainant holding his foot. It was claimed that the complainant was just trying to help our client over the fence.

Our client turned and punched the man in the face causing extensive injuries requiring hospitalisation and surgery.

The case is an example that 'section 10' is available despite serious injuries being occasioned.

A jury in Parramatta District Court unanimously found our 38 year old client 'not guilty' of all 3 counts of 'sexual intercourse without consent'.

The case involved our client and the female complainant meeting in a Sydney Cabaret Bar and sharing drinks.

The complainant then invited our client back to her sister's apartment.

The pair were engaging in sexual intercourse on the balcony, when the sister came out of her bedroom and said 'What are you doing? You have a boyfriend'.

The complainant then claimed she was being sexually assaulted.

It is unfortunate that police and the over-zealous DPP insisted on the case going all the way to a jury trial.