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Result: Ch2 Withdrawn; Plead Ch 1 on both briefs - Fined $1000, without conviction, no interference with licence.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