This is a family violence case resulting in a diversion for Threat to Kill.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was charged with Recklessly Cause Injury, Unlawful Assault, and Make Threat to Kill. He was 41 at the time of the alleged offending and had no prior criminal history. The complainant was his wife. The client admitted that he had an argument with his wife but denied any assault.
We represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court.
What happened at court?
During discussions with the prosecution over the course of several case conferences and a contest mention, the credibility of the complainant was put in issue. We provided the prosecution with material of subsequent statements made by the complainant which cast serious doubt on the credibility of the claims that she was assaulted.
At the contest mention, the assault charges were withdrawn. The client had admitted to making a threat to his wife but the context in which the threat was made was unusual, and involved a period of prolonged taunting by the complainant.
It was also significant that our client had apologised for his actions, and had voluntarily completed a mens behaviour change program. Further he had agreed, at the time, to a final Intervention Order. This was subsequently varied by the complainant and had expired well before the matter was finalised at court.
What was the result?
The prosecution could not be persuaded to withdraw the charge of Make Threat to Kill (on the basis of some admissions made in the client’s record of interview). But they eventually agreed to recommend the matter for diversion.
Submissions were made to the presiding Magistrate highlighting the unusual features of the offending. Our client successfully received a diversion. This was a significant outcome for our client in that it enabled him to avoid a criminal record, which on his instructions, would have had an adverse impact on his employment and consequently his ability to provide for his family.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was charged with Recklessly Cause Injury, Unlawful Assault, and Make Threat to Kill. He was 41 at the time of the alleged offending and had no prior criminal history. The complainant was his wife. The client admitted that he had an argument with his wife but denied any assault.
We represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court.
What happened at court?
During discussions with the prosecution over the course of several case conferences and a contest mention, the credibility of the complainant was put in issue. We provided the prosecution with material of subsequent statements made by the complainant which cast serious doubt on the credibility of the claims that she was assaulted.
At the contest mention, the assault charges were withdrawn. The client had admitted to making a threat to his wife but the context in which the threat was made was unusual, and involved a period of prolonged taunting by the complainant.
It was also significant that our client had apologised for his actions, and had voluntarily completed a mens behaviour change program. Further he had agreed, at the time, to a final Intervention Order. This was subsequently varied by the complainant and had expired well before the matter was finalised at court.
What was the result?
The prosecution could not be persuaded to withdraw the charge of Make Threat to Kill (on the basis of some admissions made in the client’s record of interview). But they eventually agreed to recommend the matter for diversion.
Submissions were made to the presiding Magistrate highlighting the unusual features of the offending. Our client successfully received a diversion. This was a significant outcome for our client in that it enabled him to avoid a criminal record, which on his instructions, would have had an adverse impact on his employment and consequently his ability to provide for his family.
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 08/01/2018
