Assault Charges – Diversion

The client was charged with recklessly cause injury, unlawful assault, and several charges of assault police and resist police.

The complainant for the offence of recklessly cause injury had notified police that she did not want to proceed with her complaint. Apart from the complainant’s unwillingness to proceed with her complaint, there was insufficient medical evidence in support of the injury charge.

The assault police charges arose out of the police attendance at the home of the complainant and the client. The client did admit to police he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol, and his judgment was impaired. He was apologetic to police and cooperative when interviewed several hours after the incident.

Shaun Pascoe represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court.

The client was in his early 30s and had no prior convictions. As a musician and performer who travelled interstate frequently and occasionally overseas, a finding of guilt, even without conviction would tarnish his otherwise exemplary profile.

Ultimately, after negotiations with the police prosecutor, the charges of recklessly cause injury and assault police were withdrawn.

As the most serious charges were withdrawn and on the basis of the client being of previous good character, the informant was contacted to consider diversion.

The informant recommended diversion and the matter proceeded to Court as a diversion hearing. Diversion was granted and the client avoided a police record.

 


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his 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