Breach Intervention Order – Heidelberg

This is a case study on charges of breach intervention order in Heidelberg including a single charge of persistent contravention of notices and orders. Our client was represented by Kristina Kothrakis at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court leading to an excellent outcome: adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour with no conviction.

What is alleged to have occurred?

An interim family violence intervention order was in place involving our client’s ex-partner as the protected person. The client was charged with a series of breaches of the intervention order by contacting the ex-partner via various platforms including Instagram, email, phone and text. In circumstances where our client had breached the order more than two times over a 28-day period, they were also charged with persistent breach of intervention order.

The protected person was spoken to by the police in advance of an upcoming hearing for the intervention order and was asked if the client had complied with the order. It was at that time that the ex-partner disclosed the offending to the police. The client was interviewed and made admissions to contacting the ex-partner in contravention of the order.

Our client instructed that it was a very complicated relationship in many ways, and the breakup affected our client significantly. During the course of the relationship, the client had reported instances of family violence which the ex-partner had perpetrated on the client. The ex-partner was also there for the client in the traumatising experience of the client’s mother passing away. This contributed to the conflicting feeling that our client had towards the end of the relationship.

The client told the police that the client sent a message to the protected person because they thought that the ex-partner had sent a friend request on social media, which to the client appeared like an invitation to make contact. The nature of the communications were not threatening or abusive, but rather focussed on the demise of the relationship and the client’s feelings towards that.

Significantly, at the time of committing the breach of intervention order in Heidelberg, the client had experienced a relapse into drug use and their mental health suffered. The client had a historical issue with substance use which had been in remission until that time.

Importantly, since the offending, our client took significant steps to rehabilitate themselves and to address the underlying cause of the offending. The client attended residential rehabilitation, engaged in psychological counselling, engaged with organisations which had a strong mentoring component, entered into a new relationship and had re-focussed at work and was performing very well.

What happened at court?

Character references were tendered which spoke very highly of our client’s true character and that they were a person of integrity and potential to do great things.

The case resolved on a plea to one charge of persistent breach of intervention order. This charge is viewed seriously by the courts given that it represents multiple breaches in a short period of time. It carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment (compared to two years for the charge of breach intervention order).

The client had no prior convictions and it was of particular importance that they receive a without conviction outcome for this case. The client’s work required them to work on contracts (including government) which required a clear police check.

Further, membership to the organisation that our client attends in order to support their mental health could be revoked if the client brings the organisation into disrepute or does not uphold their values.

Submissions were centred around the client’s motivation for offending, the nature and seriousness of the offending, the significant matters in mitigation and the impact that a conviction would have on the client’s future prospects. Several references of very high quality were tendered.

What was the result of the breach intervention order in Heidelberg?

We were ultimately successful in achieving a without conviction outcome. The court imposed an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. Over that time, our client must complete a behaviour program.

Kristina Kothrakis

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 17/03/2025