Assault Charges, Fight Whilst Intoxicated – Good Behaviour Bond, No Conviction

The accused was charged with intentionally causing injury and, in the alternative, recklessly causing injury and unlawful assault after he punched male waiting in the taxi queue outside a Melbourne bar.

What is alleged to have occured?
The accused was extremely intoxicated at the time and, following his arrest by police, spent 4 hours in the police cells due to his level of intoxication. The complainant suffered a fractured jaw.

At the time of the offending the accused was aged 26. He had no prior convictions or Court appearances; it had been 10 months since the offending occurred and there had been no further incidents involving police. Following his arrest, the accused undertook an anger management course.

He pleaded guilty to the charge of recklessly causing injury.

What happened at court?
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

Despite the serious nature of the charge, the magistrate was satisfied that the accused was ordinarily a person of good character, given his lack of prior convictions or Court appearances.

She was impressed that he had voluntarily attended an anger management course and had also written a letter of apology to the complainant, which was sent via the police informant.

What was the result?
For the reasons cited above, the magistrate imposed an adjourned undertaking (good behaviour bond), without conviction, for a period of 2 years and ordered that he make a contribution to the Court Fund.

The police applied for an Exclusion Order of up to 12 months’ duration, to exclude the accused from drinking alcohol in the CBD. The magistrate, considering that this appeared to be a one off’ offence and that there had been no further offending since refused the application.

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