Anastasia Qvist is an outstanding lawyer. My criminal law situation (family violence order) was difficult, complex and Ana's diligence saved me as I was going through the most difficult period of my life. Ana is down to earth, commonsense and she even kept our costs to a minimum. She is a skilled litigator and knows the ins and outs of the ACT Magistrates Court. She dealt skillfully with the DPP and is an excellent negotiator. You will get a fair representation and she genuinely cares about her clients. She has my complete recommendation. The lady goes to bat for her clients.
I would strongly recommend Anastasia to anyone who is seeking legal representation. As a first-time offender who was charged with a Level 2 Drink Driving offence, she walked me through every step of the matter and was very upfront and clear on all aspects of my case. She was always accessible when I needed advice. Her approach and advice were excellent. Under her representation, I received the best possible outcome and managed to avoid a criminal conviction. She was a pleasure to deal with throughout the whole matter.
Anastasia Qvist was very professional and helpful in every step of my matter. I got a very good outcome and I can’t thank you enough for your hard work and the Armstrong Legal team in Canberra. I would highly recommend her!!!
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Charge Negotiations (NSW)
This page outlines the factors that the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) takes into account when deciding whether to withdraw charges, reduce charges, vary the statement of alleged facts or engage in other forms of charge negotiations.
Charge negotiations are encouraged
Generally, charge negotiations are encouraged by the DPP. However, the alternative charge must adequately reflect the essential criminality of the conduct and the plea must provide adequate scope for sentencing (i.e. it must adequately give effect to the principles of sentencing, e.g. deterrence, punishment, the safety of the community).
There must be evidence to support the prosecution case
Where the prosecution case is weak and a finding of guilt if unlikely the DPP is much more likely to be agreeable to withdrawing the charge or substituting a less serious charge.
Cost and time of prosecution relevant in charge negotiations
Where the cost and time that are likely to be taken by the prosecution outweigh the value of a successful prosecution, the DPP is more likely to be open to negotiating for the withdrawal of charges. Where withdrawing charges will save a vulnerable witness or victim from the stress of testifying in a trial and/or where a victim has expressed a wish not to proceed with the original charge or charges, the DPP may be more likely to agree to withdraw charges or negotiate a plea to lesser charges.
Views of the police officer-in-charge and the victim
The DPP will take into account the views of the officer in charge of the prosecution and the views of the victim when considering charge negotiations. This means that where the police or the victim feel strongly that the prosecution should proceed, the DPP will be less likely to withdraw or substitute a lesser charge. However, the views of the police and the victim/s alone are not determinative as it is the general public interest that must be served.
Facts must not be distorted as a result of charge negotiations
The DPP may agree to substitute another charge to secure a plea where this is possible while retaining the integrity of the factual situation in the alleged facts. Where the substitution of a different charge would distort the facts and create an artificial basis for sentencing, the DPP is unlikely to agree to this. Acceptance of an alternative plea must not distort the facts and create an artificial basis for sentencing.
Accused must accept responsibility
Acceptance of an alternative plea is not acceptable if the accused continue to assert their innocence with respect to charges to which they have offered to plead guilty. In other words, a plea cannot be accepted purely for convenience or expedience.
Charge negotiations must be in writing
In some cases, the prosecution may not consider an offer unless its terms are clearly set out in writing.
Early and appropriate guilty pleas
The content and timing of communications from the defence to the prosecution will be significant, given the weight accorded to early and appropriate pleas. A plea deal on the day a matter is listed for a contested hearing will not attract the same discount as a plea of guilty at the first mention.
Pleas to manslaughter based on mental impairment
Where a prosecutor is contemplating accepting a plea of guilty to manslaughter based on mental impairment under s23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (as an alternative to a murder charge), community values are to be taken into consideration.
Other charges may be taken into account
Charges that are not proceeded with are placed on a “Form 1.” These are the charges prepared by the prosecution, with which a defendant has been charged, but not convicted. They can be taken into account when dealing with the defendant for the principal offence.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
Probation is a sentencing option commonly used by courts in NSW for both adult and child offenders. Probation involves supervision…
In New South Wales youth detention centres are known as youth justice centres. There are six of these centres in…
There are numerous criminal offences in New South Wales that can lead to a sentence of imprisonment. However, imprisonment is…
WHERE TO NEXT?
If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.
WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000