Criminal Damage 2

The client had been involved in an ongoing dispute with his next door neighbour. There was a dispute over a debt that was owed to the client from an associate of the neighbour. During the course of the previous night, the neighbour had been drinking alcohol and yelling abuse towards the client over the fence. In the early hours of the morning, the neighbour attended on the client’s property, slashed the clients car tyres, yelling at him to come outside and confront him. The neighbour was carrying a hammer and a knife. The neighbour proceeded to smash all the windows in the front of the clients house. Glass had fallen on top of a sleeping resident. The client then armed himself with a tent pole and, proceeding to the neighbours property, used the tent pole to smash the windows on his property, also breaking the window of the neighbours car. The neighbour sustained self inflicted injuries during the incident. Both parties were charged.

Our client’s case was heard at the Frankston Magistrates’ Court and Melbourne County Court (on appeal). Kristina Kothrakis represented the client for the charge of Criminal Damage.

The client had no prior convictions, and was not employed at the time. The Magistrate was persuaded by the submission that the matter should be dealt with by way of non-conviction outcome. He was fined $150 and given 4 months to pay.

 


Kristina KothrakisKristina Kothrakis

Kristina has significant experience in criminal trials and also holds a degree in Science, majoring in Psychology, an invaluable area of knowledge, as many of her clients suffer from psychological disorders.

Kristina strives to achieve the best possible result for all her clients. Skilled, decisive and assertive, Kristina demonstrates dedication, care and professionalism at all times.

Visit Kristina’s profile to read more about her 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 25/02/2013