Case Studies

Karnib & Co Lawyers

Our client was charged with two counts of supplying a prohibited drug and two counts of agent corruptly receive benefit. Our client was a prison guard at the time of these offences and the prosecution alleged that our client’s conduct facilitated the introduction of prohibited drugs into a correctional facility. This matter was prosecuted by the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions before the Wollongong Local Court.

After analysing a voluminous brief of evidence, Mr Sam Karnib negotiated a plea deal that involved our client pleading guilty to the two lesser charges, agent corruptly receive benefit. The two supply charges were withdrawn and dismissed. Mr Sam Karnib also negotiated agreed facts which minimised our client’s involvement in the offending conduct. These facts stipulated that police began investigating the introduction of drugs into the correctional facility and identified a number of people, including inmates, their family members and associates, who were allegedly involved.

Mr Sam Karnib appeared before the court and submitted that our client was very reserved, unlikely to re-offend and was a person of otherwise good character. Also tendered was psychological material which detailed our client’s mental state at the time of the offending.

While two co-offenders were sentenced to gaol terms for offences of drug supply, our client was sentenced to a 12-month Intensive Corrections Order which could be served within the community. Our client was relieved to be able to serve her time within the community, watch her daughters grow and maintain her relationship with her partner and mother.

Our client was charged with one offence of sexual touching and one offence of common assault. The prosecution alleged that our client sexually touched the complainant during a night out in Sydney amongst witnesses who allegedly saw the interaction.

After analysing a voluminous brief of evidence, we noticed that the prosecution failed to properly investigate the matter and that key pieces of evidence were not disclosed to the defence.

We wrote detailed representations to the prosecution highlighting their failure to investigate and present all evidence relevant to the criminal prosecution, namely evidence that was exculpatory for our client.

As a result of our analysis of the evidence and persuasive representations, both charges were withdrawn and dismissed prior to the defended hearing.

Our client was extremely pleased with the dedication we showed throughout the court proceedings and the result in having both charges withdrawn without the matter proceeding to a defended hearing.

Our client was charged with one offence of not keep firearm safely and one offence of not notify police of change of address where firearm stored. The maximum penalty for not keeping a firearm safely is a fine of $2,200 and/or 12 months imprisonment. The maximum penalty for not notifying police of change of address where firearm stored is a fine of $5,500.

Our client plead guilty to both offences at the earliest opportunity and appeared before Wollongong Local Court for sentence. Prior to his sentencing proceedings, we assisted our client in preparing his subjective case which included strong references that attested to his otherwise good character, including being a father of three young children, owning and operating his own business as a cement renderer, being the sole income earner in the family, and a very genuine letter of apology expressing his remorse for the offending conduct and the impact firearms offences have on the wider community.

We appeared before Wollongong Local Court and made submissions on sentence that our client had learned a valuable lesson and that the court should exercise discretion in his case. After hearing our submissions, the court dismissed the charges pursuant to a section 10. Our client and his family were very pleased with the outcome, given the serious nature of the firearms charges.

Our client was charged with a high-range PCA offence after police and emergency services attended a location where a vehicle had lost control and collided at heavy speed into a tree on a highway in the South Coast.

Our client was airlifted to hospital, sustained multiple injuries and was hospitalised for 4 months.

On sentence the prosecution argued that this offence was so serious that the court should sentence him to a term of imprisonment.

We argued that our client was a young man with no prior criminal record, had undertaken numerous alcohol courses, reconnected with his family who had supported him through his recovery, and that this experience had taught this young man a very permanent life lesson. We argued he had excellent prospects of rehabilitation and had shown significant remorse for the offending conduct.

Our client faced Wollongong Local Court in June 2023 and was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for 2 years with supervision and 100 hours of community service.

This was an exceptional result given the severity of the offending and our client and his family were beyond relieved.

Our client was charged with dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and larceny as bailee. Our client sold his friend’s car for monetary gain to fund his gambling habit.

Our client admitted that he found himself in a considerable amount of debt as a result of this problem and admitted that his severe gambling habit contributed to his offending conduct.

Following vigorous negotiations with the police, we managed to secure a plea deal that withdrew the more serious charge of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. Our client plead guilty to the larceny charge and we appeared before Sutherland Local Court for sentence. Larceny as bailee carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

On sentence, we submitted that our client suffered from mental health impairments that had a bearing on his offending and lowered his moral culpability, and tendered medical evidence in support of this argument.

Our client was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for 3 years. A condition of this order was that our client continue with counselling for his mental health impairments. Our client was extremely happy with this result as he avoided a full-time gaol sentence and this order allowed him to treat a factor which contributed to his offending.

Our client was charged with aggravated sexual assault. The prosecution alleged that our client had sexual intercourse with the complainant without consent. The prosecution case was that our client was not known to the complainant and that he broke into her home. The police facts alleged that our client was heavily intoxicated at the time and had no recollection of the alleged events.

Our client was refused police bail and we made a bail application before a Magistrate at Wollongong Local Court. The prosecution case was scrutinised during the bail application and questions were raised as to why the front door was left unlocked, why the complainant did not call for help but had a conversation with the accused who was allegedly unknown to her at the time, and why she had reserved her complaint for five days before going to the police to report.

Our client was granted bail by the presiding Magistrate, availing our client from having to remain in custody on remand whilst awaiting trial.

Our client was a young man who held a P2 provisional licence. He was charged with mid-range PCA and responsible person not disclose driver details.

The police facts alleged that a passing motorist alerted police to a collision site where a vehicle had collided into a fence. Police attended the scene to find our client intoxicated at the site. After questioning him, our client stated that he was not the driver of the vehicle. Our client instructed that he was asleep in the backseat of the vehicle when the car crashed, that his friend was the driver and that his friend had fled the scene shortly after the collision. No witnesses reported seeing a second person at the collision site.

Police formed the view that our client was the driver during the collision and breath-tested him. Our client returned a BAC of 0.114. Due to our client’s denials about being the driver, he was asked to disclose the details of the alleged driver which he refused to do so.

We appeared before Wyong Local Court and were able to convince the prosecution to withdraw the mid-range PCA offence. We negotiated with the prosecution by arguing that they could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt, the identity of the driver at the time of the collision. We argued that despite our client being found to be intoxicated at the scene shortly after the collision, they could not prove that he was the driver at the time of the collision. The prosecution subsequently withdrew the mid-range PCA offence and our client plead guilty to responsible person not disclose driver details.

Our client received a $500 fine for not disclosing driver details and was very happy with the result.

Our client was charged with supplying a prohibited drug and dealing with property, proceeds of crime, valued at less than $100,000. The offence of supply under section 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

Our client was working as a Security Officer and a non-conviction was crucial for his continued employment in this field.

The police facts stated that police observed a male enter and exit our client’s car suspiciously and that police decided to approach them. Our client was found with 4 bags of cocaine and $900 cash on his person and was questioned in relation to drug supply. Our client made full admissions to being in the area to supply prohibited drugs and dealing with proceeds of crime.

We worked tirelessly with our client leading up to his sentence, preparing subjective material and referring our client to drug treatment programs. Our submissions on sentence along with our subjective bundle secured a non-conviction order for our client. Our client received a Conditional Release Order without conviction for a period of 2 years. The conditions of this order included that he be of good behaviour, abstain from drugs and complete rehabilitation programs.

Our client was charged with one count of common assault and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Both offences were domestic violence related. The police alleged that during a relationship breakdown, our client made her way to the complainant’s place of work and threw a bottle at him, causing a small laceration to his face.

Our client was young and had pre-existing mental health conditions. Our client had been suffering with extreme anxiety and depression for many years and had been receiving treatment for these conditions. Prior to the alleged incident our client lowered the dosage of medication prescribed for these conditions.

We obtained a psychologist report outlining the connection between her mental conditions, external stressors and the impact this had on her judgement and decision-making capabilities at the time of offending. With our written submissions, our prepared subjective bundle and our vigorous oral submission, we were able to convince the presiding Magistrate at Liverpool Local Court to divert our client under the mental health legislation rather than sentence her pursuant to the criminal law.

As a result, both charges were withdrawn and dismissed, and an ADVO was accepted on a without admissions basis for a period of 12 months with condition 1 only.

Our client was charged with common assault and destroy/damage property. It was absolutely vital for our client to receive a non-conviction as he was studying to become a lawyer.

Upon instructions from our client and our analysis of the police brief which included body worn footage, interviews and photographs of the alleged damage, we formed the view that our client had been wrongly prosecuted. As soon as we were instructed, we sent formal written representations to the police proposing that both charges and accompanying ADVO be withdrawn and dismissed.

Our representations were considered and accepted. As such, both charges and accompanying ADVO were formally withdrawn and dismissed. This was a fantastic result in record time which spared a young and intelligent young man from having to go through a lengthy and stressful court process.

Our client was charged with larceny (shoplifting value under $2,000). The police facts alleged that our client was seen by security removing security tags from merchandise and then placing these items into her bag. Our client was caught on CCTV footage stealing items approximately worth $1200.

Our client explained that she had an out of body experience and was not in the right frame of mind at the time of the offence. We advised our client that she had merits in making a section 14 application pursuant to mental health legislation. We proposed she attend sessions with a psychologist in order to obtain an expert report outlining their mental state at the time of the offence.

We prepared the section 14 application thoroughly and appeared before Downing Centre Local Court. The court accepted our application. The charge was withdrawn and dismissed and our client was discharged into the care of her psychologist on the condition that she comply with the proposed psychological treatment plan. This was a great result for a very vulnerable client.

Our client was charged with very serious offences of failing to provide for a child (causing danger of serious injury) and wounding a person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. These are two offences carry a maximum penalty of 5 years and 25 years imprisonment respectively. This matter was prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions given the serious nature of the charges. Our client was bail refused by both the Local and Supreme Court on these charges for approximately 1 and half years until new evidence came to light that was exculpatory for our client.

Once this new evidence came to light, Mr Sam Karnib made a fresh bail application before the Supreme Court of NSW and given the nature of this new evidence along with powerful submissions on why bail should be granted, the Supreme Court of NSW granted the bail application. Our client could not put into words the gratitude and relief she felt after being released from custody after such a significant period of time on remand.

Our client was charged with one offence of damaging property. The item of property our client damaged was a car that belonged to the company he was previously employed by. Prior to the offending our client was terminated by this company due to a false sexual harassment claim that was ultimately dropped. After his termination our client saw the company vehicle parked at the Liverpool Catholic Club parking lot and kicked the vehicle on multiple occasions, denting and scratching all doors. Our client indicated to us that due to what occurred whilst he was employed by this company, his mental health had suffered significantly prior to and during the offending conduct. We advised our client to consult a psychologist in order to be assessed pursuant to the mental health legislation. Our client followed our advice and consulted a psychologist who opined that he was suffering from a diagnosable mental health condition at the time of the offending conduct. Prior to our client being assessed and the section 14 report drafted, we wrote detailed representations to the police and argued they remove adverse facts from the Police Fact Sheet. The police wholly accepted our representations and the Fact Sheet was amended pursuant to our proposal. The final Police Fact Sheet outlining the circumstances of the offending conduct that was tendered before the court received during the section 14 application significantly reduced the moral culpability of our client’s behaviour.

In addition to this we prepared a subjective bundle that included the psychological report, completion certificate of an anger management course our client completed, a letter of apology and various character references. We appeared before Liverpool Local Court and made a section 14 application for our client. The Presiding Local Court Magistrate made positive remarks about our meticulous preparation, heard our submissions on the application and granted the application.

Our client was ordered to comply with a 12-month treatment plan and the charge was dismissed. Our client was very pleased with the result considering the added mental strain these court proceedings placed on him and his family who had already endured so much.