The client and his wife were charged with intentionally causing serious injury for the stabbing of B. There were no witnesses and B claimed that the client and his wife called him outside his unit and began to attack him. B claimed that he found the iron bar in a hedge where he had left it after car repairs and was able to defend himself.
What is alleged to have occured?
B was stabbed in an incident that occurred in the early hours of the morning outside his unit in Broadmeadows. In the incident, the client was smashed over the head with an iron bar and also suffered serious injuries.
The client maintained that he was at the address with his wife to collect tobacco from the neighbour’s house (who was a long time friend). He admitted to standing outside shouting in at B who had earlier insulted his wife. The client said that B charged out from the house armed with the iron bar and attacked him and his wife then used a knife to try and defend her husband.
The police originally charged all three people with offences and later dropped the charges against B.
What happened at court?
Josh Taaffe, who is based at Doogue + George – Melbourne Office, represented the client at committal and trial in the Melbourne County Court. At committal the details of B’s claims and surrounding matters was explored and put on the record. As B had given a police statement and also been interviewed by the police, there were already many inconsistencies in his version of events and many more emerged during questioning at the committal.
At trial, B was again cross examined and confronted with the inconsistencies in his version of events. At different times he had given many different accounts as to what he was hit with, who held what. He claimed to have been pistol-whipped with a metal gun by the client. Only a toy plastic pistol was in the area but none of the client’s DNA was on the pistol. Independent witnesses gave evidence that the toy pistol belonged to the client’s son. There were many other examples pointed out to the Jury in Josh Taaffe’s closing address.
The Jury was also informed that B had a powerful motive to lie to cover up for his own criminal responsibility. The Jury heard evidence about his use of weapons in the past and his violent confrontations with other neighbours.
What was the result?
The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
What is alleged to have occured?
B was stabbed in an incident that occurred in the early hours of the morning outside his unit in Broadmeadows. In the incident, the client was smashed over the head with an iron bar and also suffered serious injuries.
The client maintained that he was at the address with his wife to collect tobacco from the neighbour’s house (who was a long time friend). He admitted to standing outside shouting in at B who had earlier insulted his wife. The client said that B charged out from the house armed with the iron bar and attacked him and his wife then used a knife to try and defend her husband.
The police originally charged all three people with offences and later dropped the charges against B.
What happened at court?
Josh Taaffe, who is based at Doogue + George – Melbourne Office, represented the client at committal and trial in the Melbourne County Court. At committal the details of B’s claims and surrounding matters was explored and put on the record. As B had given a police statement and also been interviewed by the police, there were already many inconsistencies in his version of events and many more emerged during questioning at the committal.
At trial, B was again cross examined and confronted with the inconsistencies in his version of events. At different times he had given many different accounts as to what he was hit with, who held what. He claimed to have been pistol-whipped with a metal gun by the client. Only a toy plastic pistol was in the area but none of the client’s DNA was on the pistol. Independent witnesses gave evidence that the toy pistol belonged to the client’s son. There were many other examples pointed out to the Jury in Josh Taaffe’s closing address.
The Jury was also informed that B had a powerful motive to lie to cover up for his own criminal responsibility. The Jury heard evidence about his use of weapons in the past and his violent confrontations with other neighbours.
What was the result?
The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Josh Taaffe
Josh has extensive experience in indictable crime including sex offences, assaults & drug matters.As an instructing solicitor Josh has specialised in handling complex matters, such as murder and terrorism trials, including State and Commonwealth Supreme Court trials. Josh is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist.
View Josh Taaffe’s profile.
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 25/02/2013
