Document containing threats

If you agree that you have committed the offence and the police are able to prove all the elements of the offence, it is best to plead guilty at an early opportunity to receive the maximum discount. Currently the maximum discount available for an early plea of guilty is 25% of the sentence.

Furthermore, the early guilty plea shows the Court that you have remorse and contrition for your actions.

Our Lawyers at National Criminal Lawyers work closely with you to ensure that we obtain all necessary paper work at increasing the chances of obtaining a non-conviction or section 10.

Document containing threats can be punished with a prison sentence of up to 2 years (if heard in the Local Court) or up to 10 years (If heard in the District Court).

Please note that the penalties mentioned are reserved for the worse case offending and are unlikely to be the penalty you receive.

If you decide to plead not guilty you will need to prepare to go to a Defended Hearing.
A defended hearing is where all the witnesses of that case are called to give evidence. The witnesses are both examined by the prosecution and tested by your defence lawyers. Our Top Lawyers Sydney, headed by Michael Moussa, one of Sydney’s Best Criminal Lawyers will ensure that your best case is put forward and will advise you on whether an applicable legal defence exists at law.
National Criminal Lawyers have defended numerous people charged with document containing threats and are experts at these hearings.

Sometimes the elements of document containing threats can be established however there also may exist a defence at law. Some of the possible defences available for those charged with document containing threats can include:

• To maintain your innocence if you did not commit the act;
• To argue that you did not cause a letter or document to be sent, delivered or received by someone;
• To argue that you did not act intentionally or recklessly when you caused a letter or document to be sent, delivered or received by someone;
• To argue that the letter did not include a threat to kill or inflict bodily harm on a person;
• To argue that you did not know the document or letter contained a threat to kill or inflict bodily harm on a person; or
• If you were compelled to act in a certain way due to the circumstances, or the threats of another you may be able to argue “Duress”
• If your actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring, you may have the defence of “Necessity”.
• If you were defending yourself or another OR yours or another’s property you may have a Defence of “Self-Defence”

For more possible defences that could be applicable to your case, please visit our dedicated criminal defences page.

The Courts are not bound by statistics however there must be reasonable consistency in sentences. A Magistrate or Judge should have regard to what has been done in other cases. In Green [2011] HCA 45, the plurity judgement of French CJ, Kiefel and Creennan JJ stated:

“Equal Justice” embodies the norm expressed in the terms “equality before the law”. It is an aspect of the rule of law.

For Document containing threats 70% of offenders received a full-time prison sentence. Our Best Criminal Lawyer Sydney have achieved results where no convictions were recorded.

National Criminal Lawyers have non-convictions for Document Containing Threats charges.

In NSW, a court can impose any of the following penalties for a contravene AVO charge.

• Prison sentence;
• Home Detention;
• Intensive correction order (previously periodic detention);
• Suspended sentence;
• Community service order (CSO);
• Good behaviour bond;
• Fine; and/or
• Section 10

However, from the 24 September 2018 new penalty’s will be replacing the above. They are as follows:

• Full time Imprisonment;
• New ICO (ICO) with a home detention condition available;
• New Community Correction Order (CCO);
• Fine; and/or
• New Conditional release Order (CRO)

For more information about the what penalties the NSW Courts can impose, please visit our dedication Penalties page.

Our client was charged with document containing threats to a neighbour who police alleged had threatened to kill the neighbour.

Our client argued that the neighbour had provoked the incident and had been the threatening party during the course of the interaction. The case was heard before the Local Court over 2 days.

The court was satisfied the client was acting in defending himself and his family. Moreover, given the large number of inconsistencies between the witnesses during cross-examination our client was acquitted of the charges.