Our client’s relevant personal circumstances were that he was 37 years old, married, and had no previous court history. He had migrated to Australia from Romania and, since settling in Australia, had enjoyed continuous employment in the IT sector.
As a result of the criminal charge and the resulting employer investigation, the client’s employment was terminated. It must be noted that at the time of the hearing, he was a permanent resident and intended to apply for Australian citizenship.
A complaint was made to the police and a family violence intervention order was obtained on behalf of the complainant against our client. When the matter came to court, the client consented to a 2-year order, without admission.
Two months after this case had concluded, the client received a charge sheet and summons to attend at the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court in order to answer a charge of Use Carriage Service to Harass. This is a Commonwealth offence that carries a maximum term of 3 years imprisonment.
We represented the client at the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court on the charge of Use a Carriage Service in a Harassing Manner. For this case, a diversion application for Use a Carriage Service in a Harassing Manner was made which turned out to be a success.
A strategy was formulated to achieve our client’s objective of accepting responsibility for inappropriate behaviour, but also to preserve his ability to apply for and obtain Australian citizenship. This was very important as his family (wife and 4-year old daughter) were settled, and failure to secure his long term aim of securing Australian citizenship would cause the family enormous upheaval.
It was decided that a court diversion would be the best outcome in the circumstances. Our client was tasked to obtain a report from his treating psychologist which would be used to provide an explanation for the client’s behaviour and put it into context.
Following discussions with the prosecution, the matter was referred for diversion. A diversion assessment hearing was allocated and our client’s case proceeded as a diversion hearing.
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 25/10/2019