Affray and Assault Charges – Diversion
Our client was part of a group of Sudanese youths who attended a club in Melbourne CBD for a night out. They became quite intoxicated and allegedly got involved in an altercation with a group of Caucasian youths. Our client and the rest of his group were charged with affray and injury charges. Specifically, our client faced the following charges:
Our client pleaded not guilty. Although he admitted to being present on the night, he could not recall what happened due to his intoxication. The Police attempted to rely on admissions in his record of interview which we argued were inadmissible on the basis that our client relayed back to the Police what he watched a figure doing on the CCTV footage without knowing if in fact that figure was him.
Dee Giannopoulos represented our client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
The Magistrate agreed that the admissions in the record of interview may not in fact be admissible at a contested hearing. On the basis that our client was present on the night and with our client making this admission to the Police, the Prosecution sought to run the case on an acting in concert basis.
The Magistrate adopted the view that Diversion would be the most appropriate outcome in all the circumstances. The other accused parties were sentenced to Community Corrections Orders. Our client was found suitable for Diversion, completed the donation requirement, and wrote a letter of gratitude to the informant. His matter was then struck out and there is no record against his name.
Dee is based in our Melbourne office and appears at all Courts in Victoria. Dee’s commitment to her clients and her passion for justice drives her to achieve great results.
Visit Dee’s profile to read more about her background and experience.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 25/02/2013