Diversion for Upskirting

UpskirtingThis is a case resulting in a diversion for Upskirting and Behaving in an Indecent Manner in a Public Place.

Our client had been charged with going into a public toilet and entering a cubicle next to one which had been occupied by another male. The male noticed a shadow being cast on the floor of his cubicle, looked up, and saw the client holding a mobile phone over the wall of the cubicle appearing to be attempting to film the male. The male then started banging on the wall of the stall which caused the client to immediately flee the toilet area.

The male attended immediately the police station to report the matter. As part of the investigation, the police was able to view CCTV which was positioned outside the toilet door. An independent person later identified my client from the CCTV footage. The client was charged with an offence of attempting to visually capture the genital region of the person in circumstances where they would not expect to be filmed.

Kristina Kothrakis represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The charges were:

Matters involving an invasion of a person’s privacy are viewed particularly seriously by the courts. They can also be a hindrance to a person’s future opportunities if a charge of this nature is on their criminal record. This was particularly so for my client, as he worked in an industry which required him to have a clear police record.

Kristina made a submission to the prosecution asking them to consider recommending the client for the diversion program. Kristina relied on the client’s previous good character and the serious impact that a conviction for a charge of this nature would have on his future. He was otherwise a successful, hard-working, married man and a father of two children. He was a person, as Kristina submitted, who was unlikely to appear before a court again. The client had also engaged with a psychologist to assist him in dealing with the issues which lead to the offending. The prosecution agreed to recommend him.

At the diversion hearing, a detailed submission was made outlining the reasons why this client was a good candidate for diversion, despite the charge being one that does not ordinarily attract diversion. The client also gave evidence before the magistrate and impressed him with his candour and demonstration of his otherwise good character and impressive work history.

Diversion was granted.

 


Kristina KothrakisKristina Kothrakis

Kristina has significant experience in criminal trials and also holds a degree in Science, majoring in Psychology, an invaluable area of knowledge, as many of her clients suffer from psychological disorders.

Kristina strives to achieve the best possible result for all her clients. Skilled, decisive and assertive, Kristina demonstrates dedication, care and professionalism at all times.

Visit Kristina’s profile to read more about her background and experience.
 


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 24/11/2017