Our client had breached his County Court Community Corrections Order for the second time because of non-compliance and further offending. The original offending for which he was placed on the order was an unplanned armed robbery. It was random and very concerning to the judge due to these circumstances. He was placed on a 4-year Community Corrections Order.
It must be noted that the client had a complex set of cognitive difficulties such as autism spectrum disorder and a mild intellectual disability. He didn’t cope well without reminders and help with scheduling and other organisational things. He presented very well, however had recently burned down his rental property because he had left oil burning on the stove while preparing his dinner.
We represented the client at the Melbourne County Court. For this case, he succeeded in having the client’s Community Correction Order cancelled.
Submissions were made to the judge about how much time had lapsed from the offending for which the client was placed on the order. We focused in on the positive aspects of the client’s participation with the order. By thorough investigation, we discovered prolonged periods of compliance especially when his client had structures in place like housing and family support.
Finally, we described the new offending to the judge. It wasn’t nearly as serious as the original offending from years ago. These submissions were made alongside considerable medical material that confirmed diagnosis, and illuminated the struggles that the client faced on a daily basis and the things that could contribute to these struggles. These included decision-making, prioritising, and other things that are taken for granted by people who don’t face these issues.
- The accused was subject to a Community Corrections Order;
- The accused contravened the order; and
- The accused had no reasonable excuse for contravening the order.
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 17/09/2019