Diversion Application for Criminal Damage

CarsThis is a case study on a diversion application for Criminal Damage.

Our client went to get his car out of his garage and found it blocked in by someone who had parked over the driveway. He waited for some time but the driver did not return. Eventually he was able to manoeuvre his vehicle along the footpath and onto the street. Unfortunately by then our client was frustrated and angry. When he drove past the parked vehicle, he got out of his car and kicked and hit the car with an umbrella causing extensive damage. The vehicle was written off.

The client was later charged with Criminal Damage and Amelia Ramsay represented him at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court.

We assessed the brief of evidence and noted firstly that our client made full admissions and he was remorseful. We also noted that our client had no criminal priors. These factors made him a good candidate for diversion.

However one factor that was not in his favour was the value of the damage caused to the vehicle. At $8,000, this amount makes the offending more serious and less likely for a prosecutor to recommend an individual for diversion. We prepared the client for both possibilities and conducted a negotiation with the prosecutor at case conference level on the first court date.

We argued that the client was an excellent candidate for diversion and that he should be afforded the opportunity to avoid a criminal record. The prosecutor agreed to recommend our client for diversion on the condition that he pay $8,000 as compensation. Our client agreed to that condition and the matter was adjourned for a diversion hearing.

We worked with the client on his diversion application for Criminal Damage. We assisted him in advance of the court date particularly in preparing the Diversion Questionnaire. The magistrate was persuaded by the questionnaire and agreed to place our client on the Diversion Program.

Elements of Destroying or Damaging Property:

  • The accused destroyed or damaged a property
  • The property was owned by a person, or by both the accused and another person
  • The accused had no lawful excuse in having done the act

 
Other related case studies:

 


Amelia RamsayAmelia Ramsay

Admitted to practice in 2013, Amelia performs her work with care and professionalism ensuring clients understand the Court process, their charges and that they receive the best possible outcome.

Since joining Doogue + George, Amelia has represented clients in a broad range of indictable offences including, manslaughter (one-punch laws), foreign incursion and terrorism related offences, importation of drugs, cultivation of drugs, and sexual offences. Her work has included trials in the County and Supreme Court, plea hearings and contested committals as well as appeals to the Court of Appeal. Amelia works closely with barristers including briefing Queen’s and Senior Counsel. Amelia also appears regularly at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court and suburban courts as a solicitor advocate.

Check out Amelia's profile to know more about her legal background and specialisations.
 


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 02/11/2018