Community Corrections Order for Theft With Multiple Priors
This is a case involving a Community Corrections Order for Theft with multiple priors.
Our client was charged with theft and multiple deception charges totalling in the hundreds of dollars. It was alleged that our client stole the credit card of someone in his house and used it to make various purchases.
The matter proceeded as a plea of guilty to a reduced amount of charges from those originally on the brief.
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The charges were:
Considered in isolation, the offending was not especially serious. However, our client had multiple priors for similar offending stretching back over many years. The most recent matter on his history was somewhat old (a positive) but he had received an Intensive Corrections Order. This is a sentencing disposition no longer available but it was a term of imprisonment allowed to be served in the community. Given these factors, our client was at real risk of imprisonment on the charges now before the court.
Our client presented with complex physical and mental health issues. He is case that was managed through a major health service. We were able to secure the attendance of his case worker at court who provided a detailed letter for the magistrate. We also obtained a letter from his current treating psychiatrist outlining our client’s various challenges.
This material proved persuasive for the court and the magistrate ultimately agreed with our submission that in all the circumstances, a gaol term was not appropriate. A Community Corrections Order was imposed despite the case being of theft with multiple priors.
Our client was placed on a 12-month CCO with conditions designed to assist with his further rehabilitation. He was not ordered to complete any community work as would ordinarily be the case.
This was a great outcome for a very vulnerable client.
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 17/08/2017