Dee Giannopoulos acted on the client’s behalf at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The charges were:
The charging officer was persuaded to recommend our client for diversion. But when the matter initially proceeded before the court, we were faced with a magistrate who was adverse to diversion as our client already had a criminal record.
The matter was booked in for a diversion hearing. The diversion paperwork was prepared with guidance from our solicitor and this was provided to the court along with written submissions.
The written submissions addressed the fact that the law does not state that diversion must only be for a first offence. It was also submitted that the drug possession was an offending dissimilar to the driving charge for which our client had previously been to court. We further explained that there are countries such as America which will not allow our client entry if there is a criminal history relating to any sort of drug charge, whereas the driving matter would not cause him that same issue.
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 29/05/2018