Breach IVO, Assault Offences, and Damage Police Sell
This is a case study on charges of Breach IVO, assault offences, and Damage Police Sell.
The police were called to our client’s home on the basis of a complaint made by a neighbour. The police attended the client’s home, spoke to his wife, and then arrested him and took him into custody. At the time of his arrest, he had been drinking heavily. Our client was bailed from the police station and was charged with multiple offences. He was not interviewed.
Shaun Pascoe acted on the client’s behalf at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court. The charges were originally:
- Breach Family Violence Intervention Order
- Recklessly Cause Injury
- Unlawful Assault
- Criminal Damage
- Behave in a Way Prejudicial to the Security, Good Order, or Management of the Police Gaol
Discussions concerning the sufficiency of evidence were undertaken with the prosecution during the case conference and contest mention phase of the proceeding. It was evident that the police could not substantiate most of the offences, on the basis that the complainant (his wife) had refused to make a statement. It was also apparent that the photos taken by the police (of the client’s wife) were not sufficient on their own to establish the allegation that our client had injured his wife.
The client was ashamed of his behaviour and sought counselling very shortly after his release from prison. At the contest mention, he had already attended several appointments to participate in counselling for alcohol abuse and mental health. The prosecution agreed to withdraw all but one offence (Behave in a Way Prejudicial to the Security of the Police Gaol).
The client was placed on an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour. Importantly, the magistrate made this order without recording a conviction which is an excellent result for a case that involves Breach IVO, assault offences, and Damage Police Sell.
- The accused acted or threatened to act in a way:
- that is prejudicial to, or that threatens, the security, good order or management of the police gaol; or
- that is prejudicial to, or that threatens, the safety of any person in the police gaol or of any person who is involved in the administration of, or in providing a service to, or in relation to, the police gaol; or
- that might cause damage to the police gaol or the loss of, or damage to, any property at the police gaol.
- Or the accused acted in a disruptive, abusive or indecent manner, whether by language or conduct to any person in the police gaol or to any person who is involved in the administration of, or in providing a service to, or in relation to, the police gaol.
- Or the accused exchanged; gave or received; or attempted to exchange, give or receive; without lawful authority, any article or substance that is prejudicial to, or threatens the security, good order or management of the police gaol.
- Or the accused knowingly wore or possessed any thing that jeopardises, or that is likely to jeopardise, the security or good order of the police gaol or the safety of people in the police gaol, other than any thing which a person is authorised by the officer in charge of a police gaol to wear or possess.
- Or the accused, who is authorised to take or use a drug of dependence, took or used or attempted to take or use that drug otherwise than in accordance with the authorisation.
Other related case studies:
- Domestic Violence – Charges Withdrawn
- Family Violence Offences – Withdrawn, Good Behaviour Bond Without Conviction
- Good Behaviour Bond for Breach Intervention Order
- Assault and Breaching Offences – Bail Application Granted
- Withdrawing a Charge of Breach IVO
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 16/01/2019