Our client was charged in relation to two incidents occurring late on the same night. The first incident occurred in a laneway near a night club. It was alleged that our client and two co-accused (known to each other) made a plan to rob someone in order to get a mobile phone for one of the co-accused. They then positioned themselves in the lane way and attacked a man not previously known to them when he passed through the lane way. The man was beaten and injured badly and his property stolen.
It was further alleged that the three co-accused then drove around before spotting two men walking. A decision was made to rob and assault these men as well. These men were not as badly injured in the incident as the previous man, but were assaulted nonetheless and their property stolen.
Our client was arrested in the days following the alleged offending and remanded into custody. He was charged with various offences, the most significant being causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. This offence carries a four-year mandatory gaol term if proven. Our client made admissions to the allegations during his interview.
The client remained in custody for over a month before a bail application was run in the Magistrates’ Court. Bail was refused and so we made an application in the Melbourne Supreme Court.
The failing to answer bail argument related to the fact that our client is a citizen of New Zealand and had only been in Australia for a matter of months. His father still lives in New Zealand.
However, we argued that our client has strong ties to the jurisdiction given that he moved here with his mother and siblings and that he lives in the family home. Further, he had employment until just prior to his arrest. The risk was not so great that it could not be properly addressed through conditions such as surrender of passport and reporting regularly to police.
In relation to committing further offences and endangering members of the public, the prosecution essentially relied upon the circumstances and nature of the offending. The offending arose in circumstances where our client had been drinking with the co-accused and had never been in trouble before. We had our client assessed for the Court Integrated Services Program and argued that supports were available to deal with any alcohol issues. We submitted that other conditions such as a curfew and non-association condition could properly address the issues.
Prior to the offending, one of the co-accused had been living in our client’s family home. The court was advised that should bail be granted, this arrangement would no longer be allowed and that the co-accused (still in custody at that time) would not be welcome to live in the family home with our client. This came from our client’s mother.
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 27/06/2017