Contravention of Personal Safety Intervention Order – Fine Without Conviction

This is a case study on charges of contravention of personal safety intervention order and common assault resulting in a fine without conviction.

What is alleged to have occurred?

Our client and their wife had been involved in a heated argument. The client became verbally abusive towards her and threatening. The police were called, attended at the home and served a Family Violence Safety Notice on the client. It was a full no contact order which prohibited the client from committing family violence, communicating with the wife in any way, attending at the home unless in the company of the police to collect property, and being within 5 metres of her. The notice was served late at night.

The client then went to the police station for assistance in retrieving some essential personal items. They
facilitated with the request, picking up the belongings not long thereafter without incident. However, about 20 minutes after they left the house, the client realised that they had left the client’s wallet behind. It was not past 1:00 AM and, rather than arrange for police assistance again, the client took the decision to go to the house to get it back.

Upon attendance, the client knocked on the door. Through the door, the wife asked our client to leave and reminded our client that the client should not be there. The client then called out that they had left the client’s wallet.

The wife retrieved the wallet and asked our client to stand back while she placed it on the floor outside the door. But as she opened the door, our client pushed the door wide open with such force that she fell on the ground. The client then proceeded to hit her on the back of her head several times while she was on the ground trying to protect herself.

As a result of the assault, the wife had grazing to her elbows and redness on her neck. She was extremely shaken and terrified. Our client then left the premises and he was later arrested and charged in relation to breach of Intervention Order, and assault.

What happened at court?

We represented the client at the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court on charges of contravention of personal safety intervention order and common assault.

From the moment the incident occurred, our client regretted it and was shocked by the client’s loss of control and explosive anger. This was something which was so out of character for the client and they contacted us very soon following the police interview and charge.

The client was encouraged to engage in psychological counselling and the client themselves made efforts to enrol into a behaviour change program. The court hearing was listed around two months after the incident and, by that time, the client had made some good headway into the treatment.

The matter proceeded as a plea of guilty. It was centred around the build of unresolved issues, our client’s loss of control and the client’s genuine efforts to understand their own behaviour and rehabilitate oneself.

The Magistrate was concerned about the conduct but also acknowledged that our client was a professional person with no prior criminal history. And while our client’s efforts towards rehabilitation were commendable, they were not sufficiently progressed for the Magistrate to have confidence that our client had made lasting change. The matter was deferred for a 3-month period.

What was the result?

Our client’s attitude in the adjourned period was exceptional. They engaged fully with all the treatments available to them. The client also had nearly completed the entire behaviour change program and was doing 3-4 sessions of treatment per week in various forms. The client was genuinely taking responsibility for their own actions and had expressed deep shame and remorse for what the client had done.

We were also able to obtain updated reports from all of the client’s treaters, who all indicated that our client was interested in the therapeutic process and making real advancements. We made submissions about the remarkable steps the client had taken, and that the Court could consider this to be a case which deviates from what might ordinarily have been the outcome of one that involves contravention of personal safety intervention order, and not record a conviction.

The Magistrate stressed the seriousness of the incident, and that the community expects harsh punishments to be imposed for this sort of offending. However, he ultimately agreed that the community was best served by our client’s rehabilitation and for the client to remain gainfully employed. He noted that our client was self motivated and had engaged in their own successful rehabilitation and he was quite confident that the client would never re-offend again. He agreed that this was a case where he could show leniency and not proceed to convict the client.

Our client ultimately received a monetary fine, without conviction. This was really important to the client as a conviction would have been devastating to their career. This case is an excellent example of the power of strong plea material and a well-thought-out and executed narrative of the case.

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 16/12/2024