The Importance of Getting the Appropriate Representation for Your Legal Matter

PARRAMATTA, Australia - July 14, 2016 - PRLog -- In one of our recent criminal law matters our client had an expensive sporty car which he decided to make vanish so that he could scam his insurance company and receive a lump sum of money for. Our client got his friends to make his car "disappear" or appear to be stolen and then followed with an insurance claim, and reported his car stolen to the police. The insurance claim was a lump sum of $42,825 which our client received after making a claim to his insurer.

Over a period of six months our client had stored his car at our client's workshop which he was going to have modified for racing purposes. On the 21st of February our client was charged with fraud and he pleaded guilty at Manly Local Court to a charge of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. This particular offence carried a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment in the prosecutor elected that it be heard in the District Court. However if the prosecutor elects to deal with the matter summarily, the maximum penalty which could be ordered summarily is a maximum fine OF $11,000 or two years imprisonment.

The prosecution's case held that between April and October 2013, our client falsely reported both to the police and to his insurer, AAMI insurance, that his car was stolen. Due to this our client received a total sum of $42,825. The offence was revealed by chance during an unrelated telephone surveillance footage.

The magistrate at the Local Court imposed a fine of 1,000 for the offence which our client pleaded guilty too and the magistrate also imposed a good behaviour bond to go along with the fine. There was a specific condition to this bond which was that he continue his psychiatric and psychological management with a Doctor, or for a specific Doctor to delegate for a minimum of 12 months and thereafter for such a period as deemed necessary. Our client did not apply for such an order. Our client appealed to the District Court against his sentence. This type of appeal happens by way of rehearing of the evidence which was given in the Local Court, fresh evidence is also permitted. The District Court had jurisdiction to set aside a sentence and discharge a defendant under this certain type of appeal.

Our client's appeal was heard in the District Court on the 5th of November 2014. Our client sought an order that he be dealt with under a s 32 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). In the alternative, our client sought an order pursuant to s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which, if made, would result in no conviction being recorded. Her Honour, gave reasons for her decision, where she declined to make an order under s 32 of the Act. Her Honour also allowed the appeal to be confirmed under s 9 of the bond and set aside the $1,000 fine imposed by the Local Court.

When our client went local court, he took a barrister. In normal court proceedings this is not normal thing which happens in the local court, and really shouldn't happen. Barristers usually attended district court or Supreme Court matters. It is very important to ensure that you have the right representation at the local court because it is extremely hard to undo what it done at court especially at the initial proceedings.

Our law firm did not initially get the case another law firm had the case and there were many errors in the initial proceedings of the case. The errors alleged in the present case may best be described as involving a constructive failure on the part of the district court judge to exercise the courts jurisdiction. The matter under challenge was the refusal to deal with the applicant. The matters which the judge took into account all fell squarely within the range of these consideration, which were, at least, permissible considerations. Counsel for the applicant refereed to the judge's consideration of the limited period which was 6 months for which compliance with a condition can be enforced as a fettering of the discretion. To describe consideration of a factor which works to limit the effective scope of a condition as an illegitimate fetter is not appropriate. The court could only intervene if it were shown that the manner in which those matters were taken into account was manifestly unreasonable, in the terms discussed by the High court for a previous case authority which came from the case of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li. During court proceedings there was no argument about these terms in the present case, won the materials which were set out by Adamson J, it is difficult to see how it could have been raised.

Our client ended up receiving a Section 9 of the Act which effected his job and will permanently effect his job record for the rest of his life. The importance of having the right legal representation especially during the initial legal proceedings is absolutely essential. If you  are experiencing similar issues or know of anyone who is experiencing any legal issues please do not hesitate to contact our Principal Solicitor Saba El-Hanania on 1800 722 252.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.sabalawyers.com.au/news/article/940/the-import...

https://www.facebook.com/sabalawyers/