Our Results

Our results.

Recent results that our referred lawyers have secured for MyDefence customers.

Case: Passive Person Charged With Assault.

After a night out with his mate, our client found himself in a strange situation. An altercation occurred between our client’s friend and his Uber driver, due to an argument about making a stop at McDonalds. Our client made attempts to diffuse the situation by restraining both parties in an attempt to break up the fight. The Uber driver chased our client and his friend with a rock and our client was later charged with assault related offences.

Charges/ Ch1 (Reckless Cause Injury); Ch2 (Unlawful Assault); Ch3 (Unlawful Assault by Kicking)

Result/ Withdrawal of all charges

We negotiated with Prosecutions over several months for a withdrawal of charges. The Prosecution initially refused to withdraw the charges because they believed they could obtain evidence from a third-party witness who observed the altercation. We had costs reserved after a Contest Mention, as the Prosecution wanted to obtain the witness statement. The Prosecution later offered to withdraw all charges without seeking costs, as they were unable to obtain the witness statement.

Case: Vigilante Drill-Wielding Offender Chosen By Police As Victim In Bizarre Assault Case.

Our client attended a business with his father and brother to pick up his ute which had a toolbox fitted. There was a dispute as to the poor quality of the toolbox and our client went to park his ute outside the business premises to negotiate. The business ordered the employees to close the gates so that our client and his family could not leave. A worker armed with a drill entered our client’s ute assaulting him with it and smashing his infotainment system. Our client pushed the drill man out of his vehicle who then threatened our client’s family with the drill. Our client punched the drill man who then got up still waving the drill attempting to assault our client with it. Police charged our client as the offender.

Charges/ Ch1 (Recklessly Cause Injury); Ch2 (Assault)

Result/ Withdrawal of all charges at Contested Hearing

The incident was captured on CCTV which clearly showed the threat to our client and his family. Our lawyer put forward the position that our client acted in self-defence, defence of another, and defence of property. We also argued that by charging the drill man, police are encouraging vigilanteism. Prosecution refused to withdraw our client’s charges on the clear evidence that the drill man and employees of the business were the offenders. Our client elected to take the matter to a Contested Hearing. In the first 5 minutes the magistrate indicated without hearing any evidence that there will be difficulty finding our client guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is because our client, his father and brother would give evidence against the drill man, and self-defence would likely be made out due to proportionality of drill vs fist.

Case: Purchase Of Mercedes Leads To Theft Charges.

Our client purchased an unregistered Mercedes in cash from a buyer advertising on the side of the road with a for sale sign. He contacted the seller and purchased the vehicle in cash, also obtaining a receipt. Police tied the car to an aggravated burglary and alleged that our client stole the vehicle.

Charges/ Ch1 (Theft of Motor Vehicle); Ch2 (Negligently Deal with Proceeds of Crime); Ch3 (Handling Stolen Goods)

Result/ Withdrawn: Ch1, 2: Plea Guilty: Ch3 (Handle Stolen Goods) adjourned undertaking without conviction and no loss of licence

Our lawyer provided an alibi for the theft charge that he was at home at the time. Our argument is that the police could not prove the element of dishonesty. Prosecution could not credibly provide a reason as to how they can prove the element but refused to withdraw because there are other family members with criminal histories for theft. This is an instance we come across frequently where police impugn guilt on clients because of other family members prior conduct. Our client instructed to ask for a sentencing indication as he’d been on bail for over a year and the magistrate conceded that our client was naive, young and accordingly provided a favourable sentence which he accepted. Notwithstanding our client had a strong case to contest the charges.

Case: Man Versus Car – Pedestrian Hit By Careless Driver Has Charge Withdrawn.

Our client was crossing an intersection in the evening. When halfway through the crossing a driver turned into the intersection and struck our client causing injuries. Instead of charging the driver, police charge our client with jaywalking. Later the driver sent our client a bill for damage to her car.

Charges/ Ch1 (jaywalking)

Result/ Charge withdrawn

The driver provided dash cam footage to police which we sought disclosure of. The footage showed our client clearly in the crossing with the driver not slowing at all and failed to drive with due care and attention. We drew this to the attention of the prosecution and questioned why the driver was not charged with careless driving. On consideration, the prosecution withdrew the charge. 

Case: Road Rage Allegation – Client Acquitted At Contested Hearing.

Our client was victim of a truck driver who dangerously pushed our client into oncoming traffic by failing to give way. Our client deployed his horn and flashed his lights at the truck driver. Further up the road the lights turned red and all traffic stopped. The truck driver got out of his truck and approached our client with a metal bar. On seeing this our client who is 6 foot and big build and got out of his car. The truck driver took one look at our client and retreated with our client yelling that he will report the truck driver to his employer. The truck driver later attended police with a ripped shirt and alleged our client attempted to hit him while seated in the front of his vehicle..

Charges: Ch1 (Unlawful Assault) 

Result: Acquitted At Contested Hearing, Costs Awarded Against Police

Our lawyer placed the police on notice that their case was weak, that the truck driver had a motive to lie, had a criminal history for violence offences and that he was the aggressor. Despite the issues of credibility, the prosecution refused to withdraw the charges on the basis that our client would not seek costs against them. Our lawyer gathered further evidence on the height of the truck window to raise an impossibility defence which established that our client, even at 6 foot tall, could not have punched the truck driver nor rip his shirt. The magistrate agreed with our arguments, believed our client’s evidence in the witness box and acquitted him. This case is an example of how police will often defend aggressors and vigilantes over victims of crime. They do so at expense of the tax payer who foots the bill for paying the legal costs for weak police cases and underserving complainants attempting to use the criminal justice system for an ulterior purpose.

Case: Charges Withdrawn Incident With Ex Father-In-Law.

Our client was in a relationship with girl from a different ethnic community. Her father did not like the relationship and forbid her from seeing our client. He would also send abusive text messages to our client’s mother. An incident occurred where the father asked our client over to their house. His mum gave him a lift in her car and waited outside. An incident occurred where the father alleges our client punched him in the shoulder causing a fracture, however our client’s mother heard the commotion and saw the father wrestling her son on the floor pulling his hair. Our client attended the police station and they charged him rather than the father.

Charges: Ch1 (Recklessly Cause Injury); Ch2 (Unlawful Assault); Ch3 (Common Law Assault)

Result: All charges withdrawn

Our lawyer argued that the punch to the shoulder (which was denied) could not have caused the injury alleged. We obtained the threatening text messages from our client’s mother, as well as a defence witness statement from her as to what she saw. The prosecutor offered to withdraw the charges. This case is an example of the disturbing way police conduct themselves in charging victims of an assault as the perpetrator and allowing perpetrators to go unpunished.

Case: Argument Between Sisters Leads To Police Charges.

Our client was charged following an argument with her sister about cheating with her ex-partner. This led to a situation with pushing and shoving and an allegation of choking. Our client made admissions in relation to the incident.

Charges: Ch1 (Recklessly Cause Injury), Ch2 (Unlawful Assault) 

Result: All charges withdrawn

Our lawyer argued that our client’s admission was inadmissible due to it being procured by a Victoria Police trial of using body worn camera recordings of a complainant’s interview. Our lawyer found out that to be admissible, the recording needed to have been backed up by a written statement by the complainant. In this case the complainant was unwilling to make a statement against her sister. Without our client’s admissions, police agreed to withdraw all charges.

Case: Client Contests Driving Whilst Disqualified Charge On Defence Of Honest Reasonable Belief.

Our client attended VicRoads to have his driver licence reissued after he was disqualified until he provided a medical report. He paid the fee and was told by the staff member that his licence will be updated on the day. Our client was intercepted by police the next morning at 2am and informed that he was disqualified from driving.

Charges: Ch1 (Driving Whilst Disqualified)

Result: Charge withdrawn

The prosecutor initially refused to withdraw the charge even though our client had the defence of honest and reasonable belief that he was licensed at the time of driving. We advised our client to take the matter to a Contested Hearing. Prior to the Hearing, a new prosecutor contacted our lawyer and offered to withdraw the charge.

Case: Acted In Self-Defence And Being Charged.

Our client attended a friend's birthday party at a pub. One of the attendees was drunk and assaulting girls at the party touching them and trying to kiss them. One of the girls was our client's girlfriend and our client had a verbal argument with the offender who was ejected from the venue. The offender returned later and lunged at our client who then acted in self-defence by kicking and punching the offender. Our client was charged.

Charges: Ch1 (recklessly cause injury); Ch 2 (unlawful assault); Ch 3 (unlawful assault)   

Result: Ch1, 2: withdrawn; Ch3: Diversion granted - 6 months good behaviour with $500 donation  

Our client was on a student visa and if he was convicted it would have affected his application for permanent residency. Initially Legal Aid had carriage of our client's file and Diversion was refused. Our lawyer successfully negotiated with the prosecutor to withdraw the most serious charges and made new submissions for Diversion which was then granted by a magistrate.

Case: Family violence incident with no complainant statement.

Our client had an argument with his partner. Police alleged that he smashed a plate and pushed his partner without any statement from his partner.

Charges:  Ch1 (unlawful assault); Ch2 (criminal damage)

Result: All charges withdrawn

Our client's partner did not want our client charged and had made no complaint. Our lawyer referred our client's partner to another lawyer to assist in drafting a statement of no complaint that clarified the situation. Police withdrew the charges.

Case: 19 serious drug charges reduced to 1 charge of drug possession.

Police lost sight of a car they believed was driving evasively at 2am. Police saw our client and his girlfriend walking down a street and believed them to be the owner of the car. They searched our client and found a plunger in his pocket and car keys. This led to search of the car, an airbnb and our client's home where a large amount of drugs were found.

Charges: Ch1, 2, 3, 4 (drug trafficking); Ch5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 (drug possession); Ch9, 10 (possess controlled weapon); Ch16 (possess prohibited weapon)

Result: Ch 1-6, 8-19 withdrawn; Plea to Ch7: adjourned undertaking without conviction

Our lawyer requested disclosure of police notes and body camera footage and spot tests of all drugs. Of 10 police involved no notes were taken, only one officer had body cam and spot tests of some drugs were inconclusive or there were no spot tests at all. It was raised that the police search was unlawful as our client had not consented to the search and police had no warrant. The matter had dragged on for over 2 years and it was agreed with the prosecutor to reduce the charges to a single charge of possession.

Case: Withdrawal of charges for family violence incident.

Client was in an abusive relationship and on a work visa. His partner forbid him from speaking to his parents and family overseas. On the day of the incident, he called his family and his partner found out and she hit him with some furniture. He tried to restrain her to calm her down. She called the police alleging she was assaulted and our client charged.

Charges:  Ch1 (unlawful assault)

Result: Charge withdrawn

Our lawyer obtained extensive character evidence of previous false complaints made to police by our client's partner in their home country, as well as a counselling report that recommended his partner attend an anger management course. Police took on board our submission and agreed to withdraw the charge.

Case: Diversion for persistent contravention of intervention order.

Client was young and in a long term relationship. He found out his partner was cheating on him with his best friend. Client made harassing phone calls to his now ex-partner trying to get answers.

Charges:  Ch1 (persistent contravention of intervention order), Ch2 (use of carriage service to harass); Ch3, 4, 5 (contravene intervention order)

Result: Charges 3, 4, 5 withdrawn; Diversion granted on Ch1, 2

Police initially refused Diversion, however MyDefence lawyer persisted and Diversion was approved by an officer in charge. MyDefence lawyer arranged a psychologist opinion that client is little risk of reoffending and submitted to the court with other submissions that client was young and had learned from the incident.

Case: Charged for using a mobile phone that was touching leg.

Client was driving a new car that didn't have a mobile phone caddy fitted. When she turned a corner her phone slipped from the centre console and was resting against her leg. Cycle police charged her with using a mobile phone.

Charges:  Ch1 (use mobile phone)

Result: Charge withdrawn

MyDefence lawyer argued that police have taken too long in providing the audio recording between police and client and made an application for costs against police which the Magistrate was minded to agree to. Prosecutor withdrew the charge on the basis that client has a contestable matter providing no costs were sought.

Case: Loss of traction when driving an unfamiliar vehicle.

Client was driving a new company work car which he was unfamiliar with. It was more powerful than the car he normally uses and he accidentally spun the wheels out. Police alleged he was performing a donut at the time which client denied.

Charges:  Ch1 (driving in a manner causing loss of traction), Ch2 (improper use of a vehicle)

Result: Ch1 withdrawn; Plea on Ch2 s76 dismissal without conviction and no interference with licence

MyDefence lawyer argued that the loss of traction was unintentional to have Charge 1 withdrawn. For the Charge 2 the Magistrate was convinced that the offence was at the lower end of the severity of the offence.

Case: Charges dropped for broken tooth in a futsal game.

Client played in a rough game of futsal. As the game was finishing an opposition player who had been assaulting client's team members throughout the game, was pushing and shoving a team mate. Client came to the assistance of his team mate along with other players. During the melee, the opposition player chipped a tooth and made a police complaint.

Charges:  Ch1 (recklessly cause injury), Ch2 (unlawful assault)

Result: All charges withdrawn

MyDefence lawyer argued that opposition player had consented to a level of rough play as a part of the game and that the game had technically not ended as the referee was still on the field. It was also unclear whether the client actually caused the injury as there were other players pushing and shoving the complainant at the time. 

Case: Trafficking cannabis to save small business decimated by Covid-19.

Client owned a small business significantly affected by Covid-19 and sending the business into debt. Opportunity arose to make some quick money via transporting cannabis to help keep the business afloat. Police randomly pulled client over, smelt cannabis and found a small quantity of cash.

Charges:  Ch1 (trafficking cannabis), Ch2 (possess cannabis), Ch3 (deal with proceeds of crime)

Result: Ch2, Ch3 withdrawn; Good behaviour bond, without conviction and $1500 donation to court fund.

MyDefence lawyer argued that client was of good character and that "situational" pressures at the time were out of character and negotiated with prosecutor to drop the proceeds of crime charge even though it was proven. A psychologist report was provided that provided an opinion that the client would be highly unlikely to reoffend. While the magistrate was unsympathetic of Covid-19 pressures citing that many people were in that position, he acknowledged that client had no criminal priors and should be afforded an opportunity to show he has rehabilitated. 

Case: SMS messages gets stalking charge withdrawn.

Client was in a long term relationship with his partner of 10 years. The partner broke up with client and would not explain why. Client later found out partner had been cheating on him and later got engaged. Client received itinerary of the honeymoon and was accused of stalking his ex-partner.

Charges:  Ch1 (stalking)

Result: Full withdrawal of charge

MyDefence lawyer provided SMS messages to the prosecutor that showed that when client was meant to have been stalking the ex-partner, the ex-partner was actively engaged in long conversations with him. The itinerary was sent to him because he was a backup email address to the flight centre account that his ex-partner used to book flights.

Case: Diversion for smashing shop window with skateboard whilst drunk.

Client was at dinner with his friends and drank a lot of alcohol and consumed some drugs which gave him a bad reaction. He left to go home on his skateboard and smashed a shop window with the skateboards as he went by. Client did not remember causing the damage.

Charges:  Ch1 (criminal damage); Ch2 (drunk in a public place)

Result: Diversion granted 

MyDefence lawyer successfully made submissions that the client while having no memory of the night was highly remorseful and apologetic to police and the complainant and offered to pay for the damage as part of any Diversion Plan.

Case: Diversion for covid-19 domestic violence charges.

Client lost his job as a chef due to covid-19 affecting the hospitality industry, this led to tension between he and his partner and escalated to being physical by both parties. Partner called police to de-escalate the situation but did not want client charged. Police charged client anyway. Partner made a statement of no complaint.

Charges:  Ch1, 2 (criminal damage); Ch3 (unlawful assault with a weapon); Ch4 (intentionally cause injury)

Result: Withdrawal Ch4; Diversion granted on Ch1, 2, 3

At first the prosecutor would not recommend Diversion. MD lawyer negotiated with prosecutor that client would take the matter to a contested hearing and with the statement of no complaint there is little prospect of the prosecutor winning the case. Prosecutor recommended Diversion and withdrew the most serious of the charges to intentionally cause injury as a Magistrate would unlikely grant a Diversion with that charge being live.

Case: Charges withdrawn for hooning offences.

Client was caught performing donuts in his car as alleged by police. Client stated that he lost control as he took the corner too fast causing him to spin out as the road was wet.

Charges:  Ch1 (fail to have proper control of vehicle); Ch2 (drive in manner causing loss of traction); Ch3 (drive in manner making smoke and noise ); Ch4 (careless driving); Ch5 (non-compliance with vehicle standards)

Result: Full withdrawal of charges

MD Lawyer found that the charging police officer filed the charges in the wrong court at Dandenong and argued that there is no jurisdiction for the court to hear the matter at the transferred court at Ringwood. Prosecutor agreed and withdrew all charges.

Case: Rammed at McDonalds drive through and accused of assault.

Client and his friends were being taunted by an old man in a utility who was pretending to ram their car in a McDonalds drive through. Client got out of the car to ask what the old man's problem was at which point the old man grabs client by the hands causing scratches. Client's friend in the car sees this and goes to help client and opens the front passenger door to old man's car to distract him. Old man rams client's friend's car causing it to be pushed 10 meters through the drive through. Client's friend who owns the car punches the old man. Old man claims that our client punched him 20 times.

Charges:  Ch1 (unlawful assault)

Result: Full withdrawal of charge

MD lawyer pointed to medical evidence that showed no facial injury consistent with being punched 20 times, also CCTV showed old man pretending to ram the vehicle when he stated in his statement that he did nothing provocative. McDonald's witness also sated that client was trying to pull his friend who punched the old man away from him at the time. Magistrate took these points on board and told the prosecutor they had a problem with this case after which the prosecutor withdrew the charge.

Case: Naive couple allows friend to grow medicinal cannabis at their home thinking it is legal.

Clients were approached by friend dying of cancer. This friend convinced the client that it was legal to grow cannabis for medicinal purposes and showed them websites to that effect. Police raided client's house and found a commercial crop being cultivated. The charge meant the matter was heard at the County Court in the indictable stream of offences.

Charges:  Ch1 (cultivate commercial quantity of Cannabis); Ch2 (traffick Cannabis); Ch3 (possess Cannabis); Ch4, Ch5 (deal with proceeds of crime)

Result: PG to amended Charge 1 (cultivate Cannabis); $3000 fine without conviction 

MD lawyer with the assistance of the clients made full disclosures to the prosecutor who made enquiries and found that the friend dying of cancer actually had died of cancer not long after the police raid of their property. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw all charges on a plea of guilty to simple cultivation. Magistrate was hard pressed to be convinced that the clients could be so naive however on the evidence presented cautiously accepted their excuse and the fact that they had no criminal priors and were of good character.

Case: Suspended and stating false name - charges withdrawn.

Client was driving suspended and stated a false name to police officer to avoid being found suspended. Police discovered the person client stated was incorrect and charged him

Charges:  Ch1 (drive while suspended); Ch2 (state false name and address)

Result: Full withdrawal of charges

MD lawyer found out that the charges were filed out of compliance with procedural laws and prosecutor agreed and withdrew the charges.

Case: No breach of intervention order, matter was a civil dispute.

Client was going through a divorce and family law proceedings. His ex-partner had an intervention order placed on him allegedly to gain advantage in property settlement and child custody arrangements. Client was charged with breaching the intervention order by using economic violence against the complainant by withdrawing funds from a joint bank account.

Charges:  Ch1 (breach of intervention order)

Result: Full withdrawal of charge

MD lawyer pointed out to the prosecutor that the case was a civil matter and that the complainant had failed to disclose in her statement that she had withdrawn joint funds without client's permission, and that the client withdrew the remaining funds to protect them for the benefit of both parties as he feared that all the funds would be cleared out. 

Case: Diversion granted for former employee stressed about unpaid super.

Client was a young trainee in the finance industry. When he left his employment, his employer refused to pay his superannuation and annual leave entitlements. The employer (complainant) did not respond to any of the client's emails or SMSs. The client developed an acute stress disorder that led him to phoning the employer over 150 times but could not bring himself to speak and hung up. When later arrested and questioned by police client was shocked at how many times he had called the complainant.

Charges:  Ch1 (use of a carriage service to harass); Ch2 (stalking)

Result: Withdrawal Ch2; Diversion granted on Ch1

MD lawyer secured a recommendation for the Diversion program, however the magistrate initially refused as the stalking charge was still on foot. MD lawyer negotiated with prosecutors to have the stalking charge withdrawn after which the MD lawyer made further submissions to the same magistrate who then granted Diversion for the client.

Case: Bobcat assault not made out after magistrate watches footage.

Client was a bobcat operator and was being harassed by his neighbour (the complainant). The complainant abused the client and sprayed him with a hose. Client got angry and decided to dig up the complainant's precious trees. The complainant claimed that the client aimed his bobcat at her with intent to assault her. Fortunately the client had filmed the incident.

Charges:  Ch1 (reckless conduct endangering serious injury); Ch2 (common assault); Ch 3 (criminal damage)

Result: Withdrawal Ch1, Ch2; Plea of Guilty to Ch3; Fined $500, without conviction, 12 month good behaviour b0nd

MD lawyer examined the client's footage and showed that the version of events by the complainant was incorrect. It also showed the complainant in fact place herself in danger by standing in front of the client's bob cat. The client sought to go around the complainant. Police refused to withdraw the most serious charges until a magistrate had examined the footage and agreed with the MD lawyer. It was fortunate that the client filmed the incident otherwise he would have likely plead guilty to the worst of the charges.

Case: Crashed car while overtaking another car at speed.

Client was overtaking another car in a 60kph zone. The other car sped up as client was overtaking causing client to also speed up. Client hit a bump in the road that lead to him losing control of the car and crashing his car into a power line.

Charges:  Ch1 (reckless conduct endangering serious injury); Ch2 (dangerous driving); Ch 3 (careless driving)

Result: Withdrawal Ch1, Ch3; Plea of Guilty to Ch2; Fined $450, without conviction, mandatory 6 months loss of driver licence

Client had priors for conduct endangering persons and was at risk of jail if found guilty of that charge. MD lawyer negotiated a plea of guilty on dangerous driving only. Magistrate was persuaded to not convicted the client as it appeared to be an accident, was his first time before the court for dangerous driving and the client had sustained injuries as a result of the accident.

Case: Non-conviction for 14 cannabis plants.

Police executed a search warrant on client's house and found an electricity bypass that was connected to a hydroponic setup of 14 cannabis plants. 

Charges:  Ch1 (cultivating Cannabis); Ch2 (trafficking Cannabis); Ch 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (possession of various drugs of dependence); Ch11 (theft of electricity) 

Result: Plea of Guilty to Ch1, Ch5, Ch11; Withdrawal Ch2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Sentenced to a 12 month Community Corrections Order, without conviction

MD lawyer found that some of the drugs were not drugs of dependence as they were prescription medications, police could not vary those charges as the 12 month limitation period had expired. MD argued that a non-conviction sentence was appropriate as it was  a first time offence and committed during a period of high stress during Covid-19.

Case: Charges withdrawn for dangerous driving.

Client allegedly was driving at 150kph in a 80kph zone and evaded police by overtaking vehicles. The police called off the chase and caught up with the client at a later date and charged  him.

Charges:  Ch1, Ch2 (dangerous driving - manner & speed dangerous); Ch3 (speeding  over 45kph); Ch4 (failing to stop when signalled to do so) 

Result: Full withdrawal of charges

MD lawyer found that the police informant had not filed the charges in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act. The prosecutor agreed and withdrew the charges on the provision that the client did not apply for costs.

Case: Luxury car company-owned car speeding at over 45kph, no driver owns up.

Client's company owns luxury vehicles that it leased out to a-list celebrities. Part of their marketing strategy was that they provide anonymity to customers by destroying contact records after the lease. One of their cars was caught speeding over 45kph in the Burnley Tunnel. The company could not provide the details of the driver.

Charges:  Ch1 (speeding over 45kph); Ch2 (failing to nominate a driver); Ch3 (failing to updated VicRoads records - address); Ch4 (failing to updated VicRoads records - name)

Result: Ch4 withdrawn; Plead guilty Ch1, 2, 3 - $2000 fine with conviction, no loss of licence as the company was the accused

MD lawyer represented the company. Magistrate was unimpressed with the company's reasons however was powerless to do anything other than to order a fine. If this had happened to an individual they would have lost their licence for 2 years.

Case: Speeding to get home from work at 4am.

Client intercepted by police at 4am coming home from his hospitality job. The road was semi residential and no public was around. Police charged client with dangerous driving at speed and speeding over 45kph. Client's goal was to not have a criminal record with dangerous driving on it.

Charges:  Ch1 (speeding over 45kph); Ch2 (dangerous driving at speed)

Result: Ch2 withdrawn; Plead guilty Ch1 - 12 mo mandatory loss of licence, without conviction

MD lawyer cross examined the circumstances at the time and convinced the prosecutor to withdraw the dangerous driving charge on the basis that there was no danger to the public given it was in the early hours of the morning and no other drivers were around. Prosecutor argued that police were also public, however the client's evidence was that he saw police ahead and slowed down and stopped, thereby not placing the police at risk with his speed as he passed them.

Case: Remanded for cultivating commercial quantity of cannabis in a syndicate.

Client was arrested by police in the moment of dismantling electrical equipment in a cannabis operation. He was remanded and police opposed bail citing he is an unacceptable risk of interfering with unknown crop-houses and destroying evidence.

Charges:  Ch1 (cultivate commercial quantity of cannabis); Ch2 (theft of electricity)

Result: Bail granted, exceptional circumstances established

MD lawyer cross examined the police informant which revealed that there were other people linked to the operation at-large and that any interference with unknown crop-houses would have already occurred. Furthermore it was the client's first time in custody and he had no prior criminal history. MD lawyer also obtained a rehabilitation report (CISP) that provided some treatment while on bail. Magistrate granted bail finding exceptional circumstances existed to release the client and placed him on stringent conditions.

Case: Client unaware he was suspended from driving, car impounded.

Client's car was impounded due to driving while suspended because of demerit points. He was unaware that he was suspended.

Charges:  Ch1 (drive while suspended)

Result: Car released from impound; full impound fees waived

MD lawyer adduced evidence showing that client required his car for work and was suffering exceptional hardship as he was stood down without pay until he had a car to drive and his employer wrote a letter supporting this claim. Magistrate was satisfied that loss of full income and job was exceptional hardship and ordered the vehicle to be released from impound.

Case: Police apply speed detection of another car to client's car.

Client was driving along a highway and indicated and changed lanes where a speeding police car was pursuing another car. The police car had to break hard and avoid a collision with the client and causing them to call off the pursuit. Police allege client was speeding and racing the car they were pursuing.

Charges:  Ch1 (speeding between 35kph to 45kph )

Result: Full withdrawal of charge

MD lawyer requested the dash cam footage of the police car which found that the speed detection was applied to the car they were pursuing and not the client's car. Accordingly they could not prove that the client was speeding. 

Case: Riding a dirt bike on a footpath while suspended.

Client was teaching his girlfriend how to ride a dirt bike. Police observed client noting the bike was unregistered and found that client's licence was suspended for not having submitted a medical report.

Charges:  Ch1 (drive while suspended); Ch2 (riding an unregistered bike)

Result: Full withdrawal of charges

MD lawyer argued that the informant had not complied with filing requirements of the court. Police withdrew the charge rather than risking that an application for costs was made against them.

Case: 20 years old and too scared to tell employer that licence was suspended.

Client's licence was suspended for 10 months due to accumulation of demerit points. He was 20 years old worked as an apprentice electrician and thought if he told his boss he would lose his job as he needed his licence to travel. Client decided to drive and was caught twice driving while suspended.

Charges:  Ch1, Ch2 (drive while suspended), Ch3 (fail to display P-Plates), Ch4 (registration plate not displayed to regulation)

Result: $750 fine without conviction, no further licence loss

MD lawyer argued that our client was young and immature, suffered anxiety and was for such a young age also a bread winner for his family. His parents are both ill as an additional stressor in his life. Magistrate agreed that for a young age he had a lot of pressure and found that he had taken steps to deal with the causes of accumulating multiple demerit points which led to a suspension in the first place.

Case: Charge amended to avoid mandatory 3 month loss of driver licence.

Client was caught speeding at alleged 98kph in a 70kph zone. Police did not use a speed detector but instead the TUPMED (Take Up Position Maintain Even Distance) method by which they followed client for 10 seconds and looked at their speedo. Client alleged that the police officer could not be that accurate which meant that there was a 4kph difference between losing his licence for 3 months or not losing his licence at all. Client works in transport and needed his licence.

Charges:  Ch1 (driving between 25 and 30kph)

Result: Ch1 amended to be driving under 25kph; fined $400 with conviction, no loss of licence

MD lawyer sought an opinion from a magistrate as to client's case where police conceded that they could not be so accurate in their driving ability to detect a 4kph difference. Further complicating the case is that client has 20 pages of prior driving offences. There was a risk that the magistrate could exercise their discretion to suspend his licence anyway. MD lawyer argued that this offence was different because it was at the time of a curfew being imposed during a COVID-19 lockdown and that he simply didn't want to be caught out of curfew. The trade-off was that he was convicted which wasn't a concern to client as he had prior driving convictions.

Case: Driving while suspended but believed licensed the time.

Police pulled client over in his car for random check and informed him that his licence was suspended. Client said he elected for the 1 point demerit point bond and produced a phone record showing that he had made a phone call to VicRoads prior to being pulled over.

Charges:  Ch1 (drive while suspended)

Result: Full withdrawal of charge

MD lawyer sought an opinion from a magistrate as to client's defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact. Prior to any finding by the magistrate, the prosecutor offered to withdraw the charge on the basis that the phone record indicates that he did make efforts to ensure he was licensed.

Case: Caught trafficking Cannabis & Cocaine with $23,000 and weapons.

Police executed a search warrant on young client aged 21yo. Search of his phone revealed evidence of trafficking cocaine and cannabis. $23,000 was found in his safe as well as a variety of prohibited weapons and an imitation firearm that was a toy gun that client had purchased as a young teenager.

Charges:  Ch1, 2 (trafficking cocaine and cannabis); Ch3, 4 (possess cocaine and cannabis); Ch5 (negligently deal with proceeds of crime); Ch6 (dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime); Ch7, 8, 9, 10 (possess prohibited weapons nuckledusters, nunchucks, 2x machete); Ch11 (possess imitation firearm)

Result: Withdraw Ch2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10;  $2000 fine without conviction

MD lawyer sought that the trafficking charges are rolled up into the one charge and that the alternate offences of possession are withdrawn and to plead to the lesser proceeds of crime offence which is a summary offence. MD Lawyer also found that the machete's are not prohibited weapons so these charges were withdrawn. At his plea, MD lawyer submitted that all the prohibited weapons and the toy gun were purchased at a time when client was a child and prior to the laws being enacted that meant such items are no longer freely available for purchase. While the client could account for much of the $23,000 cash seized, because of the evidence of trafficking, it was a choice to take the opportunity to resolve the matter in front of a sympathetic magistrate who took into account client's lack of a prior criminal history and agreeing to not convicting him due to his young age and prospects of rehabilitation.

Case: Speeding while suspended and not displaying P Plates.

Police pulled client over for speeding at 82kph in a 60kph zone. Client was suspended from driving and not displaying his P Plates. Because this was a second offence police also made an application to forfeit his $30,000 car.

Charges:  Ch1 (drive while suspended); Ch2 (speeding 22 kph over the limit); Ch3 (not displaying P Plates); Car forfeiture application

Result: Full withdrawal of charges

MD lawyer found a filing defect of the charges and raised this issue with the prosecutor who agreed to withdraw the charges providing that no application for costs was made.

Case: Accidental fishtail of car on the way to dinner. 

Police pulled client over observing that he had fishtailed his car around a corner on his way to a pizza shop. Client had slowed down on an amber light but decided to proceed through the intersection to prevent a hard brake and stop in the intersection. Client's car was impounded but released later on exceptional hardship grounds. While impounded police found the car was unroadworthy.

Charges:  Ch1 (careless driving), Ch2 (driving causing loss of traction), Ch3 ( unroadworthy vehicle)

Result: Ch1 withdrawn; Plead Guilty Ch2 & 3 - Fined $600 without conviction & no further suspension of licence

MD lawyer successfully had the more serious charge of careless driving withdrawn. As this was the client's first offence a minimum penalty was submitted to the Magistrate with no loss of licence. The Magistrate accepted that client's behaviour was inadvertent.

Case: Lying Police officer claims client forged a signature then lays charges.

Client was charged with numerous driving offences including making a false nomination for offences that she said she did not commit. Police officer alleged our client admitted to forging a signature on a driver nomination form amongst other allegations including that client was covering for her friend hoping to avoid the speeding fine/dangerous driving charge and loss of licence.

Charges:  Ch1 (speeding over 45kph); Ch2 (dangerous driving at speed); Ch3 (making a false nomination of driver)

Result:  Full withdrawal of charges + legal costs reimbursed

The MD lawyer sought the recordings from the police informant where the client made the alleged admissions. After listening to the recordings, it was evident that no such admissions were made and the police informant's statement was materially different. The police informant showed no remorse and refused to withdraw charges. The MD Lawyer took that matter to court and the prosecution agreed to withdraw. Client is also considering an IBAC complaint and suing the police for misfeasance in public officer/malicious prosecution.

Case: Abusing Protective Services Officer near a railway station. 

PSOs saw what they thought was a domestic violence incident at a train station they were patrolling between client and her boyfriend. PSO made an innocent yet insulting comment to client who took it the wrong way and responded by abusing the PSOs and other attending police officers with offensive language. Client was offered Diversion by the prosecutor but this was refused by the magistrate.

Charges:  Ch1 (use of offensive language on a public transport premises)

Result:  Full withdrawal of charge

After analysing the brief and talking to the client, the MD lawyer found that the offensive language was uttered on the footpath outside the railway station premises. 12 months had expired since the date of the offence so police could not lay an additional charge of offensive language in a public place. Client was extremely remorseful for her conduct which assisted in having the charge withdrawn.

Case: Protestor damages window of Victorian Premier's electorate office.

Client suffers PTSD due to an assault on him a number of years ago. Progressively his behaviour escalates to participating in anti-lockdown protests and being arrested for not complying with pandemic directions. One evening he and a fellow protestor attended the office of the Victorian Premier and damaged the front window with a sling shot and ball bearings. Client is remanded in custody without any mental health support.

Charges:  Ch1 (criminal damage); Ch2 (possess prohibited weapon); Ch3 (fail to comply with CHO directives); Ch4 (drug possession)

Result:  Therapeutic Community Corrections Order without conviction

The MD barrister resolved client's case leaning heavily on him having no prior criminal history but also his untreated yet diagnosed mental health condition. Prosecutor sought a conviction, however the Magistrate sided with the MD barrister acknowledging that a conviction would be a step too far for someone who has not been given the chance of undertaking therapy.

Case: Disgruntled customer makes threats to call centre employee.

Client purchased some gifts online from a mainstream retailer. Gifts were never delivered and client called customer service line 9 times in one day seeking a refund. On the ninth phone call our client was told he won't get a refund at which point he became verbally abusive and made threats out of frustration and in a snap moment.

Charges:  Ch1 (threat to inflict serious injury); Ch2 (use of a carriage service to menace)

Result: Full withdrawal of charges

The MD lawyer argued that the threat was not a serious threat and that the client did not have the necessary intent because he knew the customer service centre was being operated outside of Australia. Also argued that the call was not menacing "in the circumstances" because when you take the context of all 9 phone calls, it was arguable that the conduct was not menacing.

Case: Entrapped into drug trafficking at music festival.

Client was attending 4 day music festival when covert police operatives arrested him for selling drugs to them. Our client says that the operatives did not take no for an answer and befriended him and persisted until our client agreed to sell some of his personal use drugs for the price he paid.

Charges:  Ch1 (drug trafficking); Ch2, Ch3, Ch4 (drug possession)

Result: Diversion granted - all charges dismissed after 3 months + $500 donation

At first the prosecutor refused Diversion. The MD Lawyer took the matter before the magistrate and argued that Diversion was suitable otherwise a stay of proceedings should be granted on the basis of improper conduct of the police in entrapping our client. Prosecution changed their mind and agreed to Diversion.

Case: Burnouts on a highway.

Client was driving on a highway and twice spun his rear wheels out at traffic lights.

Charges:  Ch1 (driving causing loss of traction); Ch2 (improper use of vehicle)

Result: Diversion granted - all charges dismissed after 6 months.

MD Lawyer secured a recommendation from the prosecutor that our client was suitable for the Diversion Program because he was young, had nil prior offences, made full admissions and was cooperative with police.

Case: Bail variation for client charged with rape.

MD Lawyer secured bail for our client charged with rape in July 2020. Bail conditions were strict. The client has complied with his conditions and made an application to vary his bail to provide more flexible hours for him to attend a new job that required shift work.

Charges: Ch1 (rape)

Result: Prosecutor consented and variation granted

The prosecutor wanted specific details of the new employment. The MD Lawyer worked with the client to provide as much disclosure as possible to minimise the variation not being consented to.

Case: "P" Plate driver burn out in a "P" Plate prohibited car.

Client is young and was driving his mums car to get new tyres for her. He wasn't aware that the car was prohibited as too powerful for a "P" Plate driver. On his way he spun the wheels of the car out for 30 metres. Client just got his first ever job driving heavy rig vehicles.

Charges: Ch1 (causing a vehicle to lose traction); Ch2 (driving a "P" plate prohibited vehicle)

Result: Plead guilty to all charges - Fined $2000, without conviction, no interference with licence

The client had significant criminal priors and the magistrate wanted to convict him on the submission of the prosecutor. MD lawyer argued that a conviction would affect his future employment and that this is his first offence since being on his "P" plates. The magistrate narrowly did not convict him or suspend his licence on the grounds that he had just secured a job.

Case: Drive unlicensed & unregistered vehicle.

Client was unlicensed for 8 years because he had outstanding fines he couldn't afford to pay off. Needed to drive on a few occasions to work to pay of fines and live. Client had priors for driving unlicensed that made him at risk of conviction.

Charges: Brief 1 - Ch1 (drive unlicensed); Ch2 (drive unregistered vehicle); Brief 2 - Ch 1 (drive unlicensed) 

Result: Ch2 Withdrawn; Plead Ch 1 on both briefs - Fined $1000, without conviction, no interference with licence

MD Lawyer argued client did not know car was unregistered. Worked with client to pay off fines, get relicensed and obtain letter from employer to convince Magistrate not to convict him. Magistrate told client he deserved a conviction but accepted it would have affected his employment so decided not to.

Case: Drive while suspended.

Client was unaware he was suspended and thought he was on the 1 demerit point bond system and had no prior history.

Charges: Ch1 (drive while suspended)

Result:  Plead Ch 1 - Fined $350, without conviction, no interference with licence

MD Lawyer argued client was unaware he was unlicensed, just had a baby and was wanting to get his bald tyres changed for safety reasons for his family, and was of good character.

Case: Car impoundment where car was a work vehicle.

Client's ute was impounded because he was driving whilst suspended. The ute was used by other employees of his company.

Result: Exceptional hardship proven.

MD Lawyer secured release of the ute by demonstrating exceptional hardship on other employees who rely on the use of the ute to do their job.

Case: Bail variation for client charged with drug trafficking.

MD Lawyer secured bail for our client charged with drug trafficking and was placed on conditions including an onerous curfew and required to live with his parents. Client had since got a full time job and needed bail to be varied to allow him to work during curfew hours, and wanted to move to his own rental property.

Charges: Ch1 (trafficking cocaine); Ch2, Ch3 (negligently deal with proceeds of crime

Result: Prosecutor consented and variation granted

MD Lawyer worked with the client to provide as much disclosure as possible on his new job. Prosecutor agreed that our client had turned his life around since the offences and consented to the variation.

Case: Extension of time to nominate other driver.

Client received notification from VicRoads that his licence would be suspended due to accumulation of demerit points due to two speeding fines paid under his name. His wife was actually the driver and she had paid the fines unknown to him.

Result: Extension of time to nominate another driver granted and licence reinstated.

MD Lawyer argued that Client was not aware of the fines and should be granted leave to nominate his wife and have his licence reinstated.

Case: Extension of time to nominate other driver.

Client's company received Final Demand from Fines Victoria for unpaid speeding infringements even though they had nominated an employee as the driver. Unaware, Fines Victoria had sent Client notification that the nomination form was filled out incorrectly but they never received the correspondence.

Result: Extension of time to nominate another driver granted.

MD Lawyer argued that a spate of mail thefts in the area at the time likely led to Client not receiving the correspondence from VicRoads and produced facebook posts of other people in the area experiencing mail theft.

Case: Breach of IVO and other serious charges where victim lied to police.

Complex case where Client was subject to an intervention order, breached it and was on remand. Partner repeatedly forcing Client to breach the order by contacting him and pressuring him stay at her house to look after their children. Partner then lied to police alleging that our Client broke in, threatened to kill her, and stole property.

Charges: Ch12 (persistent contravene IVO); Ch 6 to 11 (contravene IVO); Ch 1 (threat to kill); Ch2 to 4 (criminal damage);  Ch5 (theft)

Result: Withdrawal Ch1 to 11; Plead Guilty Ch12 - Received therapeutic CCO with time served for time on remand.

MD Lawyer negotiated all but one charge to be withdrawn arguing that the complainant had made the story up (all proven on police body cam and false statements) and indicating that our Client would take the matter to a contested hearing. MD Lawyer  had listed a bail application as a backup for the next day which would have likely been granted based on the weakness of the prosecution case. Client had to plead to contravening the IVO because the law said that even if the victim forces a breach, this is no defence.

Case: Unpaid parking fines

Client's company received 3 court summonses for parking on the street over a time in a 2hr parking limit.

Charges: Ch 1, Ch 2 & Ch 3 (exceed parking in a 2hr parking zone)

Result: Withdrawal of all charges

MD Lawyer negotiated with prosecutor to allow client to pay the infringements even though the charges were proven and the Client's company may have faced a substantially greater fine.

Case: Bail application

Client was driving to his mum's home late at night with all his possessions in his car. Police pulled him over for a licence check. Client consented to search of vehicle where police found a large quantity of cash and a traffickable quantity of cocaine and other drug paraphernalia.

Charge: Ch 1 (trafficking drugs); Ch2 (possess drugs); Ch3/Ch4 (deal with proceeds of crime)

Result: Bail granted

MD Lawyer cross examined the police informant who agreed that client consented to the search when he did not have to. Raised the argument that with all his possessions in the car, the money was his life savings and the drugs were for his drug addiction. Lawyer arranged drug treatment while on bail and client was to be under a curfew and supervised by his mum at her house.

Case: Shop theft where client had forgot to pay

Client attended Coles supermarket and walked out of the store with $50 in groceries unaware that she forgot to pay for them.

Charge: Ch 1 (theft)

Result: Diversion granted, Ch1 dismissed after 3 months

MD Lawyer argued that client had not intended to leave the store without paying for groceries (Intention is a key element for police to prove theft) and that she was exhausted from a new born baby. Client had no prior criminal history and police agreed to recommend her for the Diversion Program.

Case: Possess drug without a prescription where search of car was unlawful

Client was driving out of a car park in the mid-morning. Police pulled him over and told him that the car park is used for drug deals and so he was going to search his car. Later police in their statement said that they saw some Cannabis in the console of his car and that was the reason why the car was searched.

Charges:  Ch 1 (Possess drug without prescription)

Result: Full withdrawal.

MD Lawyer asked for body cam footage which showed that the police office only saw the cannabis after he told our client he would search the car. The officer did not have reasonable suspicion to search the car, which made the search unlawful.

Case: Unpaid train ticket and abusing PSO.

Client was on a train going home when asked by PSOs to show his ticket, he also had his feet on the seat. Client believed he had a valid ticket as he had a collection of transport passes at home he always puts credit on them. He was tired and abused the PSOs who called police.

Charges:  Ch1 (invalid ticket), Ch2 (feet on seat), Ch3 (offensive behaviour)

Result: Diversion granted, all charges dismissed after 3 months

MD Lawyer asked client to write a letter of apology to the PSOs who then recommended him for Diversion. Magistrate accepted that client was tired and irritable, but would be more respectful in future.



Need help on your defence?

Get a top MyDefence criminal lawyer working for you at an affordable fixed fee. Contact us if you have any questions about your charges. Or register your case now and we will get the ball rolling on your defence. No upfront fee, just pay before your next court appearance.