Recklessly Cause Injury and Unlawful Assault – Diversion
Our client was charged with committing offences of violence in a dispute with his housemates. He was charged with recklessly causing injury to his male housemate and unlawfully assaulting the female housemate.
An argument had broken out with the female housemate. The male and female housemates had been supposed to move out a month earlier but remained on with the permission of our client who was the leaseholder. Tension had built up within the household and an argument broke out.
The male housemate returned home and grabbed our client in a headlock. Our client bit the arm of the male while he was in the headlock. There was a great deal of dispute as to what took place during the argument. Our client denied assaulting the female and said that the bite was in self-defence. The location of the bite on the male’s arm seemed to suggest that the bite happened while our client was being choked in the headlock.
Josh Taaffe acted for our client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. He booked the matter in for a contested hearing so that our client could defend the charges. As the hearing approached, prosecutors contacted us and told us that the Court had overbooked hearings and there was no Magistrate to hear our case on the assigned day. The Prosecutors were eager to resolve the case.
We agreed to plead guilty to a minor assault on the female housemate if all charges relating to the male were withdrawn and if the prosecution would put the matter forward for diversion. We drew up a summary of events that more closely resembled our client’s account than the original police summary.
Diversion was granted leaving our client with no criminal record.
As an instructing solicitor Josh has specialised in handling complex matters, such as murder and terrorism trials, including State and Commonwealth Supreme Court trials. Josh is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist.
Visit Josh’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