Drunk Stealing – Diversion
This is a case of drunk stealing resulting in a diversion.
Our client was charged with Theft following an accusation that he stole a bottle of alcohol from the Crown Casino. At the time of the alleged offending, the client was adversely affected by alcohol and there were two others who were also charged with Theft.
The client admitted his involvement when questioned and was otherwise co-operative. Despite the relatively minor nature of the offending and our client’s co-operation, the police did not initially recommend diversion. Hence an application for diversion was submitted through the police informant.
Shaun Pascoe represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The charges were:
The application for diversion was subsequently recommended, and then approved by the presiding Magistrate on the first listing of the case.
It must be noted that the offending was relatively minor and our client made full admissions. Our client also obtained good plea material in the form of strong character references which were tendered to the court at the diversion assessment hearing. His full co-operation and genuine remorse for his offending was underscored during submissions to the court.
Our client enjoyed full-time employment and a criminal record would have placed his continued employment in jeopardy. By reason of the successful diversion for the drunk stealing, our client avoided a criminal record.
He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.
Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his 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 11/01/2018