This is a case study on a charge of make a false bomb threat resulting in a diversion program.
What is alleged to have occurred?
Our client was a 19-year-old apprentice who was charged with one count of make a false bomb threat after posting on a Twitter (now “X’) account that a bomb was going to be left outside a Victorian Government office together with a ‘manifesto’.
Our client was interviewed by police. The client told police that the tweet was a joke only meant to be seen by the 4 twitter followers attached to his account and was related to an ongoing issue with VicRoads and difficulty in obtaining P-Plates.
Despite the explanation provided to police in the record of interview, our client was charged with ‘making a bomb threat’, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment.
What happened at court?
Our client was provided advice and chose to plead guilty to the offence.
With the assistance of our lawyers, the client relied upon helpful materials that assisted in explaining the conduct that had occurred and in support of his good character and prospects of rehabilitation.
Our lawyers engaged a psychologist who provided an expert report diagnosing our client with autism spectrum disorder, a lifelong developmental condition that affects how our client interacts with others, communicates and behaves, and which contributed to the offending in this case. Family and friends provided character references that said our client was an exceptionally caring person, with a sense of humour consistent with the type of comment that led to being charged by police. Our client also prepared a letter of apology that was addressed to the sentencing magistrate and the broader community and reflected genuine remorse.
What was the result?
The materials in support assisted our lawyers to successfully negotiate with police prosecutors and resolve the matter by way of diversion. Police prosecutors issued a discretionary diversion notice indicating that our client was suitable for the program. At the diversion hearing, our lawyers then persuaded the sentencing magistrate that it was the appropriate outcome. Our client was placed on a diversion program with the promise to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.
Diversion is a favourable sentencing outcome and a way of avoiding any form of criminal record. It means that if our client complies with the conditions of the diversion program, then the charges are struck out and our client will not have a criminal history for the charged offence.
We are pleased to confirm that our client completed the diversion program successfully.
Edward Kline-Marantelli
Edward's legal practice is primarily focussed on criminal and commercial litigation with a strong interest in white-collar crime and regulatory disputes. He was also previously a Judge’s Associate in the Supreme Court of Victoria.Edward has experience in dealing with a broad range of criminal matters including complex legal disputes that involve disadvantaged clients. He supports clients through practical, straightforward advice and exceptional advocacy.
View Edward Kline-Marantelli'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 01/11/2024
