Unfortunately, our client had a prior matter from 30 years ago where she was given a good behaviour bond for a similar offending.
Dee Giannopoulos acted on the client’s behalf at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on a charge of Theft From Shop.
We advised the client that we would make an application for diversion. We gave her a list of references to obtain and other courses to engage in which would assist us in making the application. She was advised further by Dee that it would not be an easy task to secure a diversion because she already had a prior record for a theft matter.
The client adhered to our advice and obtained the material we suggested. We put together a written application to the prosecution for diversion consideration.
The prosecution agreed in the circumstances of the prospect of loss of employment to provide a diversion notice.
When the matter proceeded before the court, the diversion application was refused on the papers by the magistrate. The magistrate’s view was that there could not be a diversion granted where our client had a prior criminal record for the same kind of offending. Dee made persuasive oral submissions in relation to the fact that there was no bar in the legislation to diversion being granted in the circumstances. A further submission was made that whilst it was aggravating that our client had a prior for similar offending, that did not pose any detriment to her current employment due to it being 30 years old. However this current matter, being a current deception offence, would and our client ought to be offered an opportunity to avoid a criminal record in the circumstances.
- The accused appropriated property belonging to another;
- The accused did so with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property; and
- The accused acted dishonestly.
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 16/08/2019