Partner Visa Success

Assault Charges Withdrawn

Security Licence Kept Despite Drugs Charges

No Disqualification Imposed

Charges Dropped

Minimum Disqualification Ordered

Drink Driving and Motor Vehicle Crash – Probation and Licence Disqualification

Successful Sentence for drugs and cash

Possession of Dangerous Drugs - Found Not Guilty after Summary Trial

Not Guilty Verdict for Importing a Border Controlled Drug

Not Guilty Verdict for Murder

Not Guilty Verdict for Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm

Not Guilty Verdict for Serious Assault

Charges Withdrawn - Southport Magistrates Court

Rockhampton Obstruct Police Charges Discontinued

Brisbane Magistrates Court Fraud Charges Dismissed

Wounding - Charge Withdrawn

Trafficking Charge Successfully Withdrawn

Dangerous Operation Causing Death

Using a Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Cause Offence

No Conviction Recorded for Drug Possession – Brisbane Magistrates Court

Cleveland Magistrates Court – No Conviction for Drugs and Weapons

Brisbane Magistrates Court – No Conviction Despite Lengthy History

No Conviction for Young Offender

No Conviction Recorded for Out of Character Assault - Brisbane Magistrates Court

Bundaberg District Court – No Conviction Recorded and No Reporting Conditions

Bundaberg Magistrates Court – Probation and No Conviction Recorded

No Conviction for Commonwealth Offences

Gable Tostee: The Year’s Most High Profile Criminal Trial

Serious Offence Allegations Downgraded to Appropriate Charges

VLAD Allegation Argued Away

Soccer Star’s Future Brighter with Non Recording of Conviction

Sexual Offences - Pornographic Material

Reduction in Sentence for Drug Offences: Imprisonment to Probation

Drug Offences – Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Sexual Offences

Drug Offences – Appeal Against Sentence

Grievous Bodily Harm – Sentence Appeal

Conviction for Arson and Attempted Fraud Overturned

Dangerous Operation of a Vehicle Causing Death

Sexual Offences – Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Conviction Set Aside; Retrial Ordered Due to Unsafe Verdict by Jury

Drug Offences – Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Sexual Offences – Appeal to the High Court Against Indefinite Sentence

Sexual Offences – Appeal Against Conviction

Drug Offences – Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

People Smuggling – Appeal Against Conviction

People Smuggling – Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

People Smuggling – Commonwealth Appeal

Share

Social Media Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Client represented by: Caitlin White


We’ve had great success in the Partner Visa space in the past two weeks, with three separate applications resulting in the grant of visa.

Two of these applications were lodged and decided in less than 6 months. This is despite the average processing time of 22 to 26 months for onshore applications.

One of the applications resulted in the immediate grant of a permanent Partner Visa.

Congratulations to our clients and their families on the terrific results.

Client represented by: Hamish Farr


Our Associate, Hamish Farr, recently appeared for a client in the Redcliffe Magistrates Court. The client was prosecuted for an offence of ‘assaults occasioning bodily harm’, arising from an allegation relating to the treatment of his 6 year old child.

In preparing the matter for trial, significant inconsistencies were identified within the brief of evidence as to the nature of the alleged act. Further, it was identified that police had failed to obtain a statement from an integral eye-witness to the alleged offence. 

Our office subsequently took all necessary steps to acquire the evidence of that eye-witness, which was found to directly contradict the evidence against our client. The evidence of the witness was swiftly brought to the attention of the prosecution in the course of negotiations.

On the morning of trial, the prosecution formally offered no evidence in relation to the offence and our client was discharged.

While we were representing a client in the Magistrates Court for drugs charges, the client received a show cause notice in relation to his security licence.

If his security licence was suspended or cancelled, he would not be able to work.

We assisted our client in two ways. Firstly we successfully advocated for no conviction recorded; and secondly sent a response to the show cause notice.

In the response, we explained the circumstances of the drug offence and that no conviction was recorded by the court. Importantly, we explained what our client had done to address the underlying issues relating to drug use. We also obtained character references for our client, referring to how highly regarded he was within the industry. We submitted that when all the circumstances and considerations were taken into account, our client should be allowed to keep his security licence. Our response was accepted by the authorities and our client kept his security licence.​

Client represented by: Rian Dwyer


We appeared in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court for a client charged with Unlicensed Driving.

Our client was caught driving in Agnes Water whilst she was there on holiday from Sydney. We appeared on her behalf, and given the expenses of travelling to Bundaberg for Court, successfully argued for no conviction to be recorded and no disqualification of her licence.

Client represented by: Tom Gardiner


Our Tom Gardiner appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for a client who faced 9 charges, including two charges of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

Through successful negotiations, Tom was able to have the most serious charges dropped. His client then entered a plea to the remaining charges and a favourable outcome was achieved.

Client represented by: Tom Gardiner


Tom Gardiner of our office appeared in the Wynnum Magistrates Court for his client.

The client had been charged with Failure to Appear and Driving With Relevant Drug Present in Breath/Saliva. Through excellent advocacy, Tom persuaded the Magistrate to order the minimum disqualification period of one month, and a $600.00 fine was also imposed. ​

Client represented by: Tom Gardiner


Tom Gardiner of our office represented a client in the Brisbane Magistrates Court who was charged with a high range drink driving offence.

It was also alleged that he was a repeat offender; and the incident involved a crash of the motor vehicle. Tom successfully argued on the client’s behalf, and the Magistrate imposed a 15 month licence disqualification and 12 months probation.​

Client represented by: Nick Dore


Our client was charged with serious drug offences after the police executed a search warrant at his premises.

During the search, the Police uncovered a large quantity of drugs and cash. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions alleged a commercial element to the drugs, given the cash found at the time. Managing Principal Nick Dore represented the client. Nick negotiated with the Prosecution and as a result the DPP accepted the submission and returned a large quantity of the cash.

The charges themselves would usually carry a term of actual imprisonment. After submissions were made on the client’s behalf, the sentencing Judge accepted there would be little utility to sentencing our client to a term of imprisonment. As such, the client avoided going to prison.

Client represented by: Shane Elliott


​Shane Elliott represented a client in the Southport Magistrates Court who was charged with possession of cannabis.

Our client denied that he had possessed the drugs so the matter was set down for a summary trial.

​The background to the case was that our client was at his girlfriend’s house when the police attended and could smell cannabis. They entered the house and walked into the room of our client’s girlfriend, where they proceeded to search and ask questions. During the search, they found a smoking utensil and a large bag of cannabis.

​During questioning, our client admitted to smoking cannabis in the room. Prior to the trial, Shane conducted a pre-trial hearing where he convinced the Magistrate to exclude the admission from evidence, as the police officer did not comply with legislative requirements to warn our client before questioning him.

​This case demonstrates the importance in engaging a competent lawyer in a criminal matter. If the admission had not been excluded, it is likely that this client would have been convicted for possessing dangerous drugs. A conviction for this offence could have had long-term consequences, including limiting travel and employment opportunities.

Client represented by: Rian Dwyer


Our team represented a client in the Bundaberg Supreme Court who had been charged with importing 276kgs of cocaine.

Since the client was from overseas, she was remanded in custody when she was first charged. By the time the trial had commenced, the client had spent almost two years in custody on remand.​ It was alleged that our client had smuggled the cocaine into Australia in the hull of the yacht that she and her partner sailed to Bundaberg from Vanuatu. The evidence against the client included lengthy surveillance of the client and the co-accused both in Bundaberg and in Vanuatu.

Given the language barrier, an interpreter was arranged and after spending four full days in the Bundaberg watch-house with the interpreter and the client, detailed instructions were finalised. The client maintained that she had no knowledge that the cocaine was in the yacht’s hull despite the fact that her three co-accused all pleaded guilty to the same charge.

After a two week trial before the Bundaberg Supreme Court, the client was found not guilty.

As her immigration status was uncertain, she was unable to be released from custody immediately so our team, along with Counsel, waited with the client at the Bundaberg watch-house in order to secure the client’s release. After conducting lengthy negotiations with the Department of Immigration, the client was finally released from custody at 10:30pm and she was able to fly home three days later.

The thorough preparation that our team put into this matter, including the four full days in the watch-house, meant the difference between the client being found guilty (and spending considerable time in jail), and being free to go home to her family.

Our client was charged with murder.

Our office briefed experienced Counsel, who made a successful pre-trial application that the criminal histories of witnesses should be disclosed to defence. Our office and Counsel then represented the client at his trial in the Supreme Court. The client was found not guilty of murder by a jury of his peers, as we successfully raised the defences available to him.

Client represented by: Rian Dwyer


Our team represented a 39 year old man in a trial before the Bundaberg District Court, relative to an Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm charge.

After two days of evidence, including the client’s evidence, the jury took no time to acquit the client. Needless to say, the client was extremely happy with the result.

Client represented by: Terry Morgans


Our client was charged with a number of counts of serious assault.

We conducted the summary hearing in the Richlands Magistrates Court. The police attended upon our client's address in relation to an allegation that by not caring for a dog found wandering in the street, he had been cruel to that dog. The client resisted arrest and protested his innocence. The police sought to arrest our client and he was subsequently charged with seriously assaulting both police officers involved. He was found not guilty on the basis that the police did not have sufficient grounds nor lawful powers to arrest him without a warrant. A subsequent civil action was pursued by the client for wrongful arrest.

Client represented by: Nick Dore


Our client was charged with assault in a nightclub in Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast.

The client was charged with being a party to the criminal conduct of another person. After reviewing CCTV footage, it became obvious it would be difficult to prove the charge against our client on the basis relied upon by the Prosecution. Managing Principal Nick Dore handled the case. Nick forwarded submissions to the Prosecution however they maintained their position to continue the prosecution of our client.

On the morning of the trial, we continued negotiation with the Prosecution, highlighting the weaknesses in their case. After further negotiations, the matter was successfully referred to justice mediation. As such, our client no longer faced serious charges for which he would have received a term of imprisonment, but instead had been diverted to mediation channels.

Client represented by: Nick Dore


Our client was charged with offences relating to an altercation that occurred on New Year’s Eve.

Our client maintained her innocence in relation to these matters and had them listed for summary trial in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court.

Managing Principal Nick Dore represented the client. He negotiated with the Prosecution but could not achieve resolution of the charges.

However it became apparent while preparing the brief that our client had a defence to the charges. As such, Nick forwarded a submission to the Prosecution outlining the deficiencies in their case and that they would be unable to prove the elements of the offences required. As a result of these representations, the Prosecution withdrew the charges against our client.

Our client had no history of previous criminal convictions and was a person of good standing in the community. Although upset with being charged with the offences, the client was ultimately relieved that the charges were discontinued against her.

Client represented by: Nick Dore


Nick Dore of our office appeared for a client charged with serious fraud offences.

The prosecution material was quite voluminous. The charges were serious and would have carried a significant period of jail.

With the help of Senior Counsel, Nick prepared the matter and came to the conclusion that there was no criminal conduct that could be alleged against our client. Representations were made to the Prosecution to have the charges withdrawn. These were rejected. The matter then proceeded by way of a three day committal hearing.

At the conclusion of that, submissions were made to the Magistrate that there was insufficient evidence to commit our client for trial for these charges. The Magistrate agreed and accordingly, all charges against our client were dismissed.

Client represented by: Shane Elliott


Shane Elliott represented a young woman in the Beenleigh District Court who was charged with wounding after she stabbed her then-partner with a knife.

After meeting with the client, Shane was able to gain her trust and she told him she had been subjected to significant violence at the hands of the complainant. Often, a female who has been subjected to this amount of violence is reluctant to speak about it, but as Shane established a rapport, the client detailed a large number of violent incidents that she had experienced.

Shane then instructed the barrister to cross examine the complainant on the violent incidents. As a result of that cross examination, the Judge indicated to the Prosecutor that their case was weak. The Prosecutor applied for a brief adjournment and after the adjournment, discontinued the charge against our client.

Client represented by: Nick Dore


Our client was a 20 year old man charged with trafficking in methylamphetamine.

The case against our client consisted primarily of text messages that had been forwarded to potential purchasers. Our client was also subject to an undercover operation, at which time methylamphetamine was exchanged with an undercover police operative.

The client was represented by Managing Principal Nick Dore. After examining the phone messages and the evidence provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nick established that there was not enough evidence to support the charge of trafficking. After careful negotiations with the prosecution, the charge of trafficking was withdrawn.

Our client avoided a significant jail period; and due to the rehabilitative efforts that he had undertaken, he avoided an actual term of imprisonment. This is another case where careful examination of a brief plus skilful negotiation with the Director of Public Prosecution saw our client avoid a significant jail period.

Client represented by: Nick Dore


Our client was charged with two counts of dangerous operation causing death and one charge of dangerous operation causing grievous bodily harm.

Our client was an elderly gentleman who was involved in a car accident in central Queensland. He himself was significantly injured and had no memory of what had transpired.

Our client was represented by Managing Principal Nick Dore. After discussing the matter with the client and obtaining his medical file, Nick established that the unfortunate accident may have been attributed to our client’s pre-existing medical condition, which then made it an unavoidable incident. The appropriate expert report was provided by a neuroscientist and it was established that our client had in fact suffered a mini stroke whilst driving.

As a result of this information, a submission was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions that saw the charges against our client discontinued. This case is another example of how thorough investigation and preparation and utilising the right team can get results.

Client represented by: Rian Dwyer


Our team had a client in his 50’s who had been charged with using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence.

The case involved our client phoning a person and leaving a harassing and offensive voicemail message. At the time of the offence, the client was on six month suspended sentence of imprisonment as well as an 18 month Commonwealth Good Behaviour Recognisance.

Upon listening to the voice message, it became clear that the message left by the client was neither harassing or offensive. Research on case law was then undertaken, relative to the definitions of ‘harassing’ and ‘offensive’. We sent a submission to the Police Prosecutor requesting that the charge be withdrawn, on the basis that the voice message did not satisfy the definitions of harassing or offensive.

The Police Prosecutor agreed with the submission and the charge was withdrawn. By conducting the appropriate legal research, a submission was able to be formulated that left the Police Prosecutor no choice but to withdraw the charge, which saved the client from potentially having to serve six months in a correctional centre.

Our client was charged with possession of cocaine. The charge carries a maximum of twenty (20) years imprisonment.

These matters were heard in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. ​Given our client’s personal circumstances, and after negotiations with Prosecution, our client was dealt with by way of a good behaviour bond with drug diversion.

Most importantly for our client, the result ensured no conviction recorded and as a result would not prohibit him from travelling overseas for business.​

Client represented by: Tom Gardiner


Tom Gardiner appeared in the Cleveland Magistrates Court on behalf of a client charged with possessing drugs, utensils, and knuckle dusters.

Tom successfully argued that his client did not have any recent offending and despite the client having a lengthy criminal history, that a good behaviour bond was the appropriate sentence. The Magistrate accepted this submission, imposed a bond, and did not record a conviction.

Client represented by: Nick Dore


Managing Principal Nick Dore appeared for a man who was charged with forging and uttering.

The client was alleged to have unlawfully used prescription medication pads. The client had a significant criminal history, however due to Nick’s persuasive advocacy, the Magistrate imposed a good behaviour bond and did not record a conviction.

Client represented by: Rian Dwyer


Our team appeared for an 18 year old man in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court, who was charged with breaking and entering into businesses in the Wide Bay region.​

The client had offending of a similar nature as a juvenile but only one entry for an unrelated matter on his adult history.​

​As the client had a drug issue and because of his youth, our team submitted that Probation was appropriate. We also sought that no convictions be recorded due to his young age and the potential impact the recording of dishonesty offences may have on his future job prospects.

The Magistrate agreed and imposed 9 months Probation and did not record any convictions.

Fisher Dore appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for a client who had been charged with an assault in a night club.

Our client had taken offence to comments made by an employee of the club, because the comments were lewd and derogatory towards women. The assault occurred when our client pushed the man who made the comments. As a result of this altercation, our client also received a three month banning notice that prevented him from entering the CBD or Fortitude Valley entertainment precincts.

We submitted to the Court that it was out of character for her client to have committed this offence, and that he is of otherwise excellent character. We had collated a number of glowing character references that were tendered on behalf of our client. 

The presiding Magistrate agreed that it was out of character and ordered that our client receive a good behaviour bond for a period of six months and that no conviction was recorded.

This fantastic result was achieved through our successful negotiations with the Prosecution and persuasive advocacy. Needless to say, the client was very happy with the outcome.

Client represented by: Rian Dwyer


Our Bundaberg lawyer instructed Counsel in the District Court relative to a woman charged with a sexual offence.

Due to the circumstances of the case it was successfully argued that a ‘no conviction’ should be recorded. The District Court Judge agreed with the submissions and no convictions were recorded. The non-recording of the convictions meant that the client was not subject to any reporting obligations.

Client represented by: Rian Dwyer


Our team appeared before the Bundaberg Magistrates Court for a client charged with Indecent Act in a place to which public are permitted access.

Whilst we were able to successfully submit that Probation was the appropriate penalty, it was only through rigorous and continued submissions that the Magistrate agreed to not record a conviction.

The non-recording of a conviction was vital in the client retaining his employment.

It is notoriously difficult to overcome Federal legislation when it comes to sentencing, especially regarding applications to not record a conviction for Commonwealth offences.

Proceedings were commenced against our client for importing a number of items, including novelty tasers. The proceedings against our client were commenced a number of years after the initial detection of the importation. Following the importation, our client had matured from a teenager and was pursuing a career with a prominent football club.

Given the minor nature of the items, coupled with the significant delay in the prosecution bringing the proceedings, the court agreed not to record a conviction.​

Across the country, the trial of Gable Tostee captured the minds of millions of Australians.

Mr Tostee was charged with murder, or alternatively, manslaughter, in relation to the tragic death of Ms Warriena Wright. On 12 October 2016, the highly publicised trial of Gable Tostee commenced before the Brisbane Supreme Court.

Both parties accepted that Mr Tostee did not physically push Ms Wright off the balcony. Instead, the Crown relied upon ‘intimidation’ to prove the offence of murder. The trial was unique in that Mr Tostee had recorded the whole incident on his mobile phone. This recording was the most relevant piece of evidence at the trial. The media reported snippets of this recording, which, in the absence of the full recording, appeared damaging to Mr Tostee. It was always the intention of the defence to ensure that the recording was considered in its entirety and context to be given to it.

Saul Holt QC, instructed by our Principal, Nick Dore, and Law Clerk, Eloise Stroeld worked tirelessly to prepare for Mr Tostee’s matter. After four days of evidence and legal argument, the jury commenced deliberations on 17 October 2016. On Thursday, 20 October 2016, after nearly four days of deliberations, they found Gable Tostee not guilty of the murder or manslaughter of Warriena Wright.

Our experience, and years of running trials have prepared us for any charge alleged against our clients. It was a fantastic result for Mr Tostee, but more importantly, a fair and just result.

Fisher Dore would like to thank the community for the messages of support received during this trial.

Fisher Dore prepares each and every one of their clients’ matters with dedication, skill and care to ensure that each matter is defended with vigour.

If you have a serious matter that requires the attention of the top criminal defence lawyers in the state, contact Fisher Dore Lawyers today for a confidential discussion.

The client was initially charged with a number of rapes. He was 18 at the time of the alleged offences.

The matter was committed for trial in the District Court. After some negotiations with the prosecution, the charges were amended to two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge - that is consensual sex with a person under the age of 16.

At sentence, Counsel submitted that a period of probation would adequately punish the offending. The Judge agreed with this submission and sentenced the client to 18 months of probation with no conviction being recorded. The client was pleased with the result, as a conviction would have resulted in being placed on the child sex offender register.​

Our client was charged as being an associate to a criminal organisation and charged with Trafficking in a schedule 1 drug (heroin).

She was an elderly woman with limited criminal history. Following negotiations at the initial court appearance, the allegation that our client was a “vicious, lawless associate” was not proceeded with.

Whilst bail was opposed, the court granted our application for bail noting that the proceedings could take a couple of years to resolve. Our client had not previously spent time in custody and was relieved to be able to attend to her defence of the charge in the community, rather than from a jail cell.

In the Beenleigh Magistrates Court, our team represented a young client charged with driving unlicensed and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with a drug offence.

The difficulty was that these charges breached his previous probation order for drug supply and possession. So far, no convictions had been recorded.

The client was 20 years old and on the verge of signing a contract to play soccer. He also had opportunities to travel overseas to play soccer and knew that if he had a conviction, this travel likely wouldn’t be possible. 

The Magistrate was initially going to record a conviction for the drug offence because of his previous history, but we argued persistently against this and advocated strongly in the client’s favour. The Magistrate accepted our arguments; did not record a conviction, gave our client a fine and did not disqualify him from driving.

The client was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment to be released after serving 12 months.

He was convicted on his own plea of guilty of 1 count of importing child pornography material.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. However they were unsuccessful in arguing this ground, and the Court dismissed the appeal.​

Fisher Dore acted for the client, who was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order.

The client pleaded guilty to 1 count of possession of MDMA, 3 counts of supplying a dangerous drug, and 1 count of possession of money suspected of being the proceeds of selling the drug.

Fisher Dore helped the client seek leave to appeal against the sentence, on the basis that a more appropriate sentence was probation or community service with no conviction recorded. The Court was persuaded that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to his prospect of rehabilitation and future employment. Leave to appeal was granted; the client was given 2 years probation with reporting conditions. The convictions were not recorded.​

Fisher Dore appeared for the client, who was convicted after trial of 1 count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine.

He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment cumulative upon an 18 year term for previous conviction. The client appealed the conviction on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the errors of the trial judge.

He also sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive due to its cumulative effect. The Court was not persuaded on the conviction point. However in regards to sentencing, leave to appeal was granted and the sentence was found to be manifestly excessive. The client's sentence was substituted with a term of 8 years imprisonment.​

Fisher Dore appeared for the client, who was convicted on his own plea of guilty.

The conviction was for 1 count of importing child pornography material and the client was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment to be released after serving 12 months.

The Commonwealth DPP appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. However the CDPP were unsuccessful in arguing this ground, and the Court dismissed the appeal.​

Our client pleaded guilty to 1 count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, 11 counts of supplying dangerous drugs and 2 counts of possessing dangerous drugs.

He was sentenced to a total of 7 years and 4 months imprisonment on the trafficking count.

Fisher Dore assisted the client in applying for leave to appeal against the sentence, on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, as the sentencing judge did not recommend consideration for release on parole. The Court was persuaded that a parole eligibility date should be fixed; the sentence was varied to reflect this.

Fisher Dore appeared for the client, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm.

He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, with parole eligibility at a fixed date. The client sought leave to appeal his sentence, on the basis that it was unreasonable.

The Court found that while the head sentence was warranted, the parole eligibility date did not reflect the mitigating factors surrounding the client's background. The parole eligibility was changed to an earlier date than his original sentence.

Fisher Dore appeared for the client, who was convicted after trial of arson and attempted fraud of his insurer.

He appealed against the convictions on 4 grounds including that a miscarriage of justice occurred and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The appeal succeeded on the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. As such, the guilty verdicts were set aside and verdicts of acquittal were entered on each count.​

Fisher Dore appeared for the client, who was convicted after trial of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing the death of two passengers.

He pleaded guilty to a further count of dangerous operation causing death in a previous year.

The client was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for the first offence, and 3 years imprisonment for the second offence, to be served cumulatively. The client appealed the second conviction, seeking to adduce fresh evidence. He also sought leave to appeal the sentences on the basis that they were manifestly excessive.

The Court was persuaded that the appeal against conviction should be allowed, and a retrial was ordered. The application for leave to appeal the sentence was granted to the extent that a parole eligibility date was fixed.

Fisher Dore acted for the appellant; he had been charged with numerous sexual offences.

Of the 23 counts, the client was found guilty on 15; he was found not guilty on the remaining counts.

The client appealed on 2 grounds: the verdicts were unreasonable, and a miscarriage of justice occurred. The appeals against conviction and sentence were allowed, and numerous orders including acquittals and retrials were made.

Our client was convicted after trial of one count of indecent treatment and acquitted on a second count of indecent treatment.

He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, suspended after 3 months with an operational period of 12 months.

Our client appealed on three grounds: the verdict of guilty was unsafe and unsatisfactory, there was a fundamental defect in the trial process, and the judge erred in directing the jury as to lies. Fisher Dore was responsible for the success of the appeal. The verdict of guilty was set aside and a retrial ordered.​

Fisher Dore appeared for client, who pleaded guilty to a number of drug related offences.

The sentencing judge imposed 4.5 years imprisonment on each of 2 of the counts, 15 months’ imprisonment on a further count, and 3 months imprisonment with respect to a breach of bail.

All terms of imprisonment were to be served cumulatively. Fisher Dore was responsible for persuading the Court that the total term of approximately 6 years imprisonment was excessive. As such, leave to appeal was granted and the sentences were reduced.

Fisher Dore acted for the client, who had been sentenced to an indefinite sentence.

The sentence covered 5 counts of rape, 1 count of burglary, 1 count of indecent assault and 1 count of grievous bodily harm. The client previously sought leave to appeal against his sentences, however this was refused. He subsequently appealed to the High Court, which ordered that the matter be remitted back to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

The High Court identified factual misunderstandings and an error of law which required the Court of Appeal to set aside the sentence and re-exercise sentencing discretion. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was successful. The indefinite sentence was set aside and substituted with fixed terms of imprisonment.

Fisher Dore appeared for the appellant who was convicted of rape after trial.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge erred in failing to properly assess the complainant’s competence to give evidence, and that the judge erred in failing to warn the jury. Fisher Dore was responsible for the success of the appeal against conviction. The verdict was set aside, and a re-trial was ordered.

Fisher Dore appeared for the client who pleaded guilty to 1 count of supplying a dangerous drug.

The client was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment to be suspended after 9 months, with an operational period of 3 years. He sought leave to appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court was persuaded it was manifestly excessive and as such, allowed the appeal against sentence. The sentence was set aside and the client was given a new sentence of 2 years imprisonment suspended after 3 months, with an operational period of 3 years.

Fisher Dore appeared for the client who, along with two other appellants, were convicted of facilitating the bringing to Australia of a group of non-citizens.

The client appealed against his conviction on the grounds that his conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Fisher Dore was responsible for persuading the Court that the client's conviction was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. As such, the client's conviction was set aside and a verdict of acquittal ordered.

Fisher Dore appeared for the client, who pleaded guilty to facilitating the bringing to Australia of a group of non-citizens and travelled to Australia without visas.

He was sentenced to 6.5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.

The client sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge erred in the treatment of certain factors.

Fisher Dore acted for the client, who pleaded guilty to facilitating the bringing to Australia of a group who were non-citizens and who travelled to Australia without visas.

The client was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

The Commonwealth DPP appealed against sentence on a number of grounds relating to the sentencing judge’s errors. The Court of Appeal was persuaded by the CDPP that the sentencing judge inaccurately treated certain factors and allowed the appeal. A non-parole period of 4 years was substituted for the period of 3 years.

 

left arrow round - Fisher Dore LawyersRight

I paid you for your knowledge, experience and professional competence. But in addition I got your kindness, compassion and respect. Much appreciated. It helped me a lot. Thanks.

Geoff

Fisher Dore Lawyers have to be the best criminal lawyers in Queensland.

Michael

Great law firm. Technically brilliant, and focused on achieving the outcome that the client wants... and achieving it as quickly as possible.

Josh - Facebook Review

Fisher Dore Lawyers have represented me in a very important case over the last three years. In all that time I have found them to be always informative, efficient and understanding. A very professional company, always available to me for any questions or advice and I have no hesitation in recommending them to anyone needing effective legal assistance.

Peter (UK)
five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

Excellent Representation - Solid advice - Great outcome.

Michael - Google Review
five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

Highly recommended. Real people. Respectful.

Sylvia - Google Review
five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

Fisher Dore are Brisbane’s best law firm. Honest, genuine and (most importantly) competent lawyers who will help you achieve justice. I give them 10/10.

Moreish Food - Google Review
five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

Long term professional association. Established credibility and integrity. A pleasure to be involved in multidisciplinary team work in benefitting clients.

Alec - Google Review
five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

The only law firm I trust!

Kimberley - Google Review
five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

Friendly and professional. Highly recommend the team. Approachable and non-judgemental with a passion and extensive knowledge of what they do.

Rachael - Google Review
five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

This firm was so easy to talk to, compassionate, reliable and 100% hardworking. Thanks so much.

Mich - Google Review

We can't express how grateful we are for all your kindness, support and generosity during this difficult time. With sincere thanks.

Thank you Fisher Dore for all you have done to release the burden we have been living with...well done.

Just want to say thank you for all your help and effort you have put in. You go above and beyond. I appreciate everything you and your team have done for me in helping better my life!

Thank you for fighting for me and for doing such a great job. Please pass on my gratitude to the team.

Thank you for your compassion, dedication and hard work throughout this difficult time. This has been life changing for me and I can't imagine how I would have got through this without your support, professionalism and expertise. I'm so grateful for your efforts and the great work you did on my behalf. Thanks again for going above and beyond, and doing everything you could to win my case.

I just wanted to put into writing, just how profoundly grateful I am for the sound advice & skilful representation you provided. The outcome you secured for me was better than I could have dared to wish for. I owe you a debt of gratitude.

I just wanted to say thank you very much for your handling of my case. I am very pleased with the outcome as well as your professionalism in communication and encouragement in my difficult time. Once again, thank you very much.

I want to thank you for looking after us both in a legal sense and in your sense of care. This has been enormously stressful. Having your diligent professionalism was greatly reassuring.

You will always be known to me and my family as the person who gave us the biggest gift we could ever want. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you so much for your amazing work. You have made a compelling argument for me and I believe my application was successful only because of your excellent work. You have always been very professional, punctual and provided me with accurate advice at all times. I am extremely grateful that I had you as my lawyer.

five star icon - Fisher Dore Lawyers

Strongly recommend if you would like the best chance at freedom.

Alex - Google Review
Close popup tab