Success Stories – United Chambers

  • Sep 11, 2019
  • |
  • By : unitedchambers
  • |
  • 0 Comments
  • CRIMINAL LAW,
  • INTERVENTION ORDERS,
  • BAIL,
  • SUPREME COURT APPEAL

In year 2017 United Chamber’s Barrister Roona Nida represented a young man who was imprisoned for alleged criminal offences and was previously represented by a local lawyer. After Ms Nida took over the case, carefully examined the evidence she learned that the client should not have been imprisoned for the alleged offences therefore immediately filed on his behalf an application for bail.

At the Dandenong Magistrates court the bail application was vigorously contested by the prosecution on the bases of unacceptable risks.  The Magistrate following the prosecution’s strong objections decided to refuse granting bail.

Based on the evidence Ms Nida had in support of client’s bail application, she believed that justice had failed and decided to appeal the decision made by the Magistrate’s Court to Supreme Court.

The prosecution at the Supreme court appeal hearing, again provided lengthy evidence in support of their objections to bail.  The Supreme Court Trial was listed for one day hearing however continued on its second day.  At the end of the 2 -day Trail, the Supreme court Honorable Judge Dixon not only decided to accept  Ms Nida’s evidence in support of appealing the Magistrate’s Court decision in granting the bail application but also directed the prosecution to examine the evidence of the alleged victim against our client in the subject matter.

The evidence that Ms Nida provided to the Supreme Court and Dandenong Magistrate’s Court, in support of the bail application were very much the same however the outcome of the two Court’s decision was completely different.

The evidence that Ms Nida provided to the Supreme Court and Dandenong Magistrate’s Court, in support of the bail application were very much the same however the outcome of the two Court’s decision was completely different.

After our client was released on bail, the final hearing of the alleged criminal offences were heard in the same Magistrates court and Ms Nida successfully argued and proved that our was falsely imprisoned.

  • FAMILY LAW,
  • CHILDREN,
  • DDHS/ CHILD PROTECTION

In year 2014 Barrister Roona Nida represented a mother who almost lost her children as a result of recommendation made by DDHS that the children must be separated from their parents under former Custody to Secretary Order.  Our client was first represented by a local lawyer before Ms Nida’s involvement as counsel and the children had already been removed from the parent’s care following DDHS’s recommendation.   Ms Nida, after making careful examination of the evidence, determined not to consent to DDHS’s recommendation.  Accordingly, this matter proceeded to 7-day Trail.   At the end of 7-day trial Ms Nida successfully argued against the DDHS’s recommendation and the children were re-united with their parents.  The name of “Custody to Secretary Order” has now been changed to “Family Reunification Order”.

The above -mentioned cases can be read online.

https://berwicknews.starcommunity.com.au/news/2017-10-16/was-it-blackmail/

https://endeavourhillshallamdoveton.starcommunity.com.au/news/2014-12-15/mums-fear-dhs-rules/

Leave A Replay

Your email address will not be published.