Diversion for Possess More Than Twice Catch Limit of Abalone
This is a case study on a sentence of diversion for Possess More Than Twice Catch Limit of Abalone.
Authorised officers of the Fisheries Act intercepted our client with more than twice the catch limit of Greenlip abalone. He was refused diversion when his matter was heard at the Magistrates’ Court and, eventually, was sentenced to a financial penalty with conviction. He appealed the sentence and conviction.
The client hoped that a County Court judge would grant him the opportunity to participate in a diversion program. During the appeal, he was represented by Sam Cooper at the Melbourne County Court on the charge of Possess More Than Twice Catch Limit of Abalone.
Sam prepared written submissions to the court outlining why it was open to the court to order our client to participate in a diversion program and why the court should make such an order. These submissions were made along with an array of character references and letters that were carefully gathered before the hearing.
At court, Sam made submissions that our client had no prior convictions and was otherwise of excellent character. He also discussed the client’s personal circumstances. The judge was ultimately convinced to grant the client a diversion for Possess More Than Twice Catch Limit of Abalone.
This was an excellent result for the client. He wished to avoid having a criminal record and he was granted the opportunity to make this so by participating in a diversion program.
- The accused has caught abalone; and
- The amount of abalone in the accused’s possession is more than twice the catch limit in place at a particular fishery.
Other related case studies:
Sam believes in rehabilitation and justice reinvestment as crucial tools to effective management of the criminal justice system. He is dedicated to helping clients understand the law that would empower them to make the right choices, helping them through the rigorous legal processes and achieving excellent results in court.
Click here to visit Sam's profile.
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 10/01/2019