This is a case study on breach IVO charges in Melbourne involving firearms matters caused by the intervention order (IVO).
What is alleged to have occurred?
Our client was facing a range of legal problems that was a result of their marriage coming to an end. The client’s relationship with their spouse fell apart and the spouse went to the police and reported family violence, with allegations of having suffered from violence inflicted by our client over several years.
Following this incident, the police applied for an IVO on behalf of our client’s former spouse. Our client was the named respondent in the order and was required to abide by a number of conditions. Our client sought advice and ultimately consented without admissions to the IVO. However, by virtue of our client becoming a respondent on a final IVO, they became a ‘prohibited person’ under the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic).
Our client was involved with recreational use of firearms for leisure, including hunting and clay targets. Our lawyers assisted the client to make an application to be deemed ‘a non-prohibited person’. In Victoria, a ‘non-prohibited person’ is someone who is not subject to restrictions in possessing, carrying or using firearms. An application to the court is required to become a ‘non-prohibited person’.
What happened at court ?
Our lawyers assisted with an application ensuring that our client was successfully deemed a ‘non-prohibited person’.
It must be noted that our client complied with the conditions of the IVO that was in place for a substantial part of the operational period of the IVO. Unfortunately, on the last day of operation of the IVO, our client and their former spouse had an argument and the spouse reported it to the police a few days later, alleging breaches of the IVO. The police applied for a further IVO and our client was then charged with breach IVO charges in Melbourne by committing family violence against the spouse – by swearing at them and acting disrespectfully.
Our client sought advice and consented without admissions to the further IVO, with the result being that a second final IVO was in place, with our client again categorised as a ‘prohibited person’ under the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic). Our lawyers assisted the client with a second court application to be deemed a ‘non-prohibited person’ which was also successful.
In the said application, it was conceded that this was the second time our client was making this application. It was emphasised that the argument with the ex-spouse did not involve firearms nor any mention of them. It was submitted that despite the domestic violence that occurred, our client was still a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Fortunately, our lawyers persuaded the Magistrate that our client was eligible to be deemed a ‘non-prohibited person’ for the second time.
In relation to the charge of breaching the conditions of the first IVO, our client engaged in extensive counselling and enrolled in a behaviour change program. Our client was a professional who needed a clearance for work, so a criminal record posed a serious risk on their economic wellbeing.
Our lawyers provided evidence of therapeutic treatment to the police prosecutors in correspondence detailing our client’s personal circumstances and addressing the offending as part of the case conference process before the court date. Our lawyers further requested that the police prosecutors consider recommending our client for diversion given what was at stake for them.
What was the result of the breach IVO charges in Melbourne?
On account of our client’s lack of criminal history, their treatment and their preparedness to take responsibility for their conduct, the prosecution agreed to recommend our client for diversion, which is a particularly exceptional outcome for charges involving IVO’s and family violence.
Our client then applied for diversion at court. The court were at first reluctant to grant our client diversion due to the seriousness of the allegations and charge of breaching the IVO. The matter was adjourned so that our client could have the opportunity to complete the behaviour change program.
Our lawyers returned to court on the next court date and successfully persuaded the sentencing Magistrate to grant diversion. This meant that our client avoided a criminal history.
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 16/05/2025
