In this case Commonwealth charges were preferred against the client relating to alleged unlawful possession of relics. The charges were new offences that did not exist under the previous legislation which covered the licensing of the same relics. Under the old legislation, persons could register relics that came into their possession and thereby make their possession legal. However, under the new legislation no person could register a relic unless they had a license to possess the relic in the first place, not after the time of their possession.

The offences carried a hefty maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment. The client’s stated goal was the achievement of the equivalent of a State spent conviction order.

On receipt of the brief a large amount of materials had to be reviewed. The legislation was fairly complex, as it normally is with Commonwealth offences, and there was no clear way to negotiate the matter to achieve the clients’ stated outcome.

After negotiations with the Commonwealth, we were able to secure a plea deal involving one of the charges being dropped. However, the Commonwealth would not budge from their stated position that a fine with a conviction recorded was the appropriate penalty.

It appeared that the Commonwealth department which administered the legislation had been applying the law unfairly. That is, some persons were allowed to license relics under the legislation, despite possessing theme unlawfully, while others were charged with offences when they attempted to register their relics.

We issued a summons to the relevant Commonwealth department to obtain evidence of all of the permits that had been issued under the new legislation. On receipt of this documentation, it was plain that numerous persons had received licenses to possess relics despite having been in possession of them unlawfully. This unfair application of the law was clearly relevant at sentencing.

Following this we resolve the matter by accepting the plea offer and proceeded to sentencing.

At sentencing, we presented a detailed plea in mitigation which included reference to the summonsed materials. This combined with other submissions convinced the Magistrate to impose a sentence that involved an undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period, with no conviction being recorded.

This was a fantastic outcome for the client and achieved their stated aim.