Driving Offences Case Studies
Driving Offences Case Studies
Criminal Case Studies
O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors are experienced traffic lawyers based in Sydney. We represented clients in many traffic offence related cases around NSW which you can read below.
*Names have been changed to protect the identity of our clients.
Garbage Truck Driver Not Guilty of Dangerous Driving in Tragic Dee Why Accident
Successful outcome for client charged with driving offence
No conviction for client charged with DUI
Client found not guilty for traffic offence
Successful sentencing appeal for grandmother
Strong sentencing submissions for actor
Client given non-conviction order after pleading guilty to driving with low range PCA
Client found not guilty of driving under the influence
Client found not guilty of driving under the influence
Sentence downgraded after successful appeal
Defence assists client with pre-sentencing report
Successful appeal of sentence in relation to negligent driving charge
Habitual traffic offender declaration quashed
No conviction recorded against budding actor
Driving charges dealt with by way of mental health provisions
Successful appeal of client’s sentence
Client successful appealed conviction and sentence
Non-conviction ordered for client charged with mid-range PCA
Finding of not guilty after defence successfully argues that client did not cause collision as alleged by police
Taxi driver charged with low range PCA avoids losing licence
Defence submissions for sentencing hearing
Charges dismissed without conviction
Jeffrey obtained two minor speeding offences (exceed speed limit by not more than 10km/h) while driving with a P1 Provisional licence. This resulted in a licence suspension.
Mr Teremoana Tekii, the driver of the garbage truck which brought about the unfortunate death of Ms Hane Mathieson on 8 February 2018 at Dee Why, was cleared by the court of dangerous driving causing death. Prior to the collision, Ms Mathieson walked with her grandson in a pram. Mr Tekii also released this statement.
He pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified and he was re-sentenced for the bond breach of the drink driving charge to a Community Correction Order.
WD was charged with driving while disqualified and speeding 20km/h over the limit. WD was caught driving 104km/h in an 80km/h work zone. Police later stopped WD’s vehicle and asked him to produce his licence. WD is on a working visa in Australia and gave police an international license. We successfully represented WD at the Downing Centre Local Court.
WS was charged with driving under the influence of a prohibited drug. Proceedings for a summary offence must be commenced no later than 6 months from when the offence was alleged to have been committed. We determined the police had filed the charge one day after the six month time limit. Since the Prosecution is unable to lay a fresh charge, it was marked as having ‘No Jurisdiction’ and the proceedings were dismissed by court.
QE was charged with speeding over 10km over the 50km/hr zone and failing to use indicator for 5 seconds, in Bronte in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs. QE was also charged with sustaining loss of traction. We successfully defended QE and he was found not guilty. QE was given a 6-month good behaviour bond without conviction.
GA was charged with several driving offences after the car she was driving collided with the victim’s motorcycle. At her initial sentencing hearing, the Magistrate ordered a licence suspension and sentenced her to home detention. We assisted GA in appealing her licence suspension on the ground that it was too harsh. During the appeal, the defence submitted that the circumstances surrounding the accident and the mental health of GA meant that the initial sentence was inappropriate. The judge quashed the local court sentence, imposing a suspended sentence instead.
GSH was charged with driving with a high concentration of alcohol in his blood following a collision with a parked car. GSH pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity. We represented GSH in his sentencing hearing where he highlighted the unique circumstances of his situation. The defence submitted that a jail sentence was unreasonably harsh and would affect his application for permanent residency and his opportunity to continue working in his field as an actor after all the hard work he had put in after moving to Australia. GSH was sentenced to a good behaviour bond, a fine and a suspension of his licence.
MAS was driving along a dark road when he collided with the back of another vehicle. When the police asked MAS to perform a breath test they found a low reading of alcohol. He pleaded guilty to driving with a low range of PCA and cooperated fully with the police. We represented MAS in his sentencing hearing where submissions were made regarding our client’s remorse and the fact that he had successfully undertaken a Traffic Offender Intervention Program. He was given a section 10 non-conviction order.
NJD was charged with driving under the influence after she veered into several parked cars. The charges were based on a number of witnesses who claimed that our client had appeared to be affected by drugs or alcohol. During the contested hearing, an expert report concluded that the small traces of methylamphetamine found in NJD’s system was insufficient to support the finding that our client’s driving ability was adversely affected. As a result NJD was found not guilty.
GOS was charged with driving a motor vehicle recklessly which was unsupported by the evidence. GOS pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of driving a motor vehicle negligently and was sentenced to a relatively lenient fine.
BDA pleaded guilty to negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. He was convicted and sentenced to a 12 month good behaviour bond and disqualified from driving for 12 months. The defence appealed the decision on the basis of severity. We assisted BDA in submitting character references that made it clear that the license disqualification would impact on his employment. The appeal was successful and BDA’s sentence was downgraded.
Our client was charged with a high range drink driving offence after colliding with a parked car. After pleading guilty, the defence assisted MHX in obtaining a pre-sentence report which supported the defence’s submission that MHX should avoid a custodial sentence. He was sentenced to a good behaviour bond, community service and his licence was disqualified.
We represented MVK in his appeal hearing against his sentence in relation to a charge of negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. We submitted that the licence disqualification prevented MVK from using both the scooter (which he had been learning to ride and had caused the accident) and his car. It was argued that the disqualification of his car licence was unreasonable and would adversely affect him. The appeal was upheld and the licence disqualification was reduced.
RE was pulled over after police saw RE performing illegal U-turns. Her roadside breath test returned a low-range alcohol reading. She was discharged from the charge on the condition that she entered into a good behaviour bond.
LC had previously been declared as a habitual traffic offender. She had turned her life around and wanted to return to her former employment, however, she needed a driver’s licence to do so. We assisted LC in getting her habitual traffic offender declaration quashed and as a result LC was able to reapply for her licence.
MS had 4 glasses of wine over a 5.5 hour period at a friend’s house. Believing that she was safely under the alcohol concentration limit, she proceeded to drive. She was pulled over as part of a random breath test and was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol after her blood alcohol reading was above the legal limit. She pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity. We represented MS in her sentencing hearing where we argued that MS’ licence was crucial to her ability to work in Sydney and that a conviction would affect her career prospects. The sentencing judge ordered that no conviction be recorded against her.
JG was involved in an accident after his vehicle ran into the back of a truck. A hospital blood test revealed the presence of amphetamines in his blood stream. We represented JG where we argued that his case should be dealt with by way of the relevant mental health provisions. JG’s case was that he took amphetamines for his ADHD as he was not prescribed with any medication for his condition. A psychological report and psychiatric report supported this argument. The Local Court Magistrate agreed with the defence’s submissions and dismissed the charges under the relevant mental health provisions.
MB was charged with and pleaded guilty to negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. She was fined $400 and her licence was disqualified for 12 months in the Local Court. MB appealed the sentence arguing that it was too severe. The defence presented evidence that the licence disqualification would unduly affect her ability to work. The District Court upheld the appeal and dismissed the case and no disqualification was imposed.
PK was charged with driving without a licence after driving his wife to the doctors without a licence. PK pleaded guilty. He received a lenient $200 fine and avoided losing his licence.
R was breathalysed by police when he was driving his car following a social event. He returned a breath analysis reading above the legal limit, and was charged with low range PCA. He pleaded guilty to the charge, and was given a penalty of 3 months licence disqualification and a $700 fine. We successfully helped R in appealing the conviction arguing that his sentence was too severe. The District Court upheld the appeal and the initial conviction and sentence was quashed.
C was charged with mid-range PCA after she was caught driving over the speed limit. We assisted C in her sentencing case by gathering a number of character references. A positive case was put forward during her sentencing hearing which resulted in a non-conviction on the condition that she enter into a good behaviour bond.
KPP was involved in a motor vehicle accident at an intersection and was subsequently charged by police for negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The police alleged that KPP had caused the collision by turning into the path of an oncoming vehicle. However, KPP disputed this arguing that it was in fact a car colliding with her from behind that forced her into the path of the oncoming vehicle. The defence successfully argued this case where it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that the collision had its cause in KPP’s negligence. KPP was found not guilty.
The police conducted a random breath test to which AL was subsequently charged with low range PCA. He pleaded guilty to the charge. We represented AL in his sentencing hearing where we made submissions that Al needed his licence due to his employment as a taxi driver. The charge was dismissed without conviction on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond.
Two Rangers were in front of IS’ vehicle when he accelerated causing the bonnet to impact both Rangers. No one was injured. He was charged with several driving offences. The defence negotiated with the police to have the withdrawal of one charge. He pleaded guilty to another with the defence assisting with his sentencing case.
VD was charged with driving with low range PCA. After pleading guilty, the court discharged VD on the condition that they enter into a good behaviour bond.
KR was charged with driving with high range PCA. The defence assisted with the preparation of KR’s sentencing case which included the compiling of positive character references. This resulted in a relatively lenient fine.
Our client was caught deflating the tyre of a police vehicle and so he was charged with destroying or damaging property. After pleading guilty we successfully represented JE in his sentencing hearing where the court made an order for the charge to be dismissed on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond.
How we Can Help
O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors is a full-service criminal defence law firm meaning that we provide legal advice on both criminal and civil law. After the completion of your criminal case, we can continue to represent you in your civil matter (if one exists). We have represented many clients in their criminal matters and then proceeded to assist them in making a civil claim against the police for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, or suing a publisher for defamation.
Your first consultation with one of our criminal lawyers is free. This is your opportunity to speak to us about your case and for us to discuss with you what your options are. If you choose to proceed with our services we will provide you with a cost agreement that sets out your legal fees. O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors provides cost-effective and professional legal advice compared with other law firms. In some instances, we offer reduced fees or pro bono services at the discretion of our Principal. We can also assist you in applying for Legal Aid if you are eligible. Speak to us if you have concerns regarding your ability to pay your legal fees and we can discuss the possibility of accommodating your circumstances.
Our criminal lawyers have handled cases in courts across NSW at Local Courts, District Courts and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. They have a wealth of experience in assisting clients with bail applications, trials, sentencing hearings and appeals to name a few.
Our team includes Accredited Specialists in Criminal Law.
Specialist Accreditation is a structured peer to peer assessment process enabling legal practitioners to be recognised for their expertise. To be accredited specialists must pass a series of meticulous assessments on both legal knowledge and its application in practice. To retain their accreditation specialists must undertake significant additional professional development in their area of expertise each year.
O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors utilises a trauma-informed lawyering approach when interacting with our clients. We understand that you have dealt with traumatic events and that engaging with authorities and courts is a stressful experience that might re-traumatise you. For this reason we are sensitive to your mental and emotional needs and will assist you in an appropriate manner. Read more about our thoughts on trauma-informed lawyering.