Fighting an Interim Intervention Order

CCTV CameraThis is a case study on fighting an interim intervention order.

The Police made an application for an intervention order (IVO) on behalf of the protected person. The allegation was that our client grabbed the protected person in a headlock outside of a small supermarket.

The matter was heard at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court and Tyson Manicolo acted on the client’s behalf.

Tyson spoke with the owner of the supermarket and the latter confirmed that he had CCTV footage capturing our client at the exact time the police alleged the incident occurred. Tyson then spoke with the police and asked them if they saw the footage. They confirmed that they did view the footage but did not obtain a copy.

The police were going to make an application to adjourn the matter to obtain a copy of the footage, and to ask the court to impose an interim IVO in the meantime. An interim IVO has the same conditions as a full IVO. Although IVOs are civil orders, breaches may result in criminal charges. The courts treat breaches of IVOs seriously and impose sentences that reflect this.

Tyson conducted negotiations with the police prosecution and the VicPol Civil Advocate in an effort to fight the interim intervention order. The goal was to have the application for an intervention order against the client be withdrawn. Initially, the police position was that the case required a directions hearing and that they would not consider withdrawal.

In light of the potential consequences and stress that the client could be subjected to due to the interim IVO, Tyson asked the magistrate to “stand the matter down” over lunch so she could give him an opportunity to get a copy of the CCTV footage from the owner of the supermarket. The magistrate ultimately stood the matter down until the afternoon sittings to allow further discussions.

Tyson then retrieved the CCTV from the shop and, sure enough, the footage supported the client’s instructions that he did not grab the protected person in a headlock. This footage was provided to the Civil Advocate and was shown to the magistrate when the matter was re-called. The magistrate agreed not to impose an interim IVO.

This was a great outcome for the client because he was cleared of the allegations and did not have an interim IVO “hanging over his head”. This matter demonstrates the importance of due diligence – in fighting an interim intervention order or in any other type of criminal defence. Sometimes you have to follow your instinct and go above and beyond to source the truth.

Other related case studies:

 


Tyson ManicoloTyson Manicolo

Tyson is part of our Broadmeadows team and provides legal representation to clients facing charges in the Magistrates' and Children's Courts of Victoria. He is experienced at providing criminal defence against both summary and indictable crimes as well as in instructing Counsel. Tyson holds multiple degrees in Bachelor of Legal Studies, Bachelor of Law, and a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice.

Admitted to practice in 2016, Tyson has a passion for advocacy and takes pride in helping people understand the law. He ensures that clients are given sound legal advice, a fair trial, and a strategic defence that will lead to the best possible outcome in court.

Know more about Tyson by visiting his profile here.

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 05/03/2019