Make False or Misleading Statement Charges – Fine

This is a case study that involves charges related to false statements made to first home owners scheme.

What is alleged to have occured?
The client made an application to the first home owners scheme and wrongly indicated that he was not in a de facto relationship on the application form. He was later interviewed by the Authority (some 18 months after application) and maintained that he was not at the time of the application in a partnered relationship. Client was awarded 26k under the scheme.

Police were called and an intervention order was placed on the accused.

Two months after the imposition of the intervention order, the girlfriend went to Court to revoke the order as she wished to continue her relationship with the accused.

At the time of making the application the client was in a fluid relationship with his girlfriend – they experienced periods of separation and periods of defacto living arrangements.

When the application was submitted, the client was not living with his girlfriend. Later in that year, they in fact married. The issue was really whether their arrangement qualified as being ‘married’ or ‘partnered’ under the act. The client took a narrow view of the interpretation of that definition and determined that he was not ‘partnered’.

What happened at court?
We represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court for the charges of:

One of the issues in this matter was there was a number of witnesses to the event, yet the police only obtained only a small number of select statements.

We proposed to call additional witnesses who hadn’t been approached by the police but who were present. Further, the prosecution had difficulty locating the two complainants in the matter.

What was the result?
We opposed the matter proceeding in their absence and opposed the Prosecution reliance on their witness statements alone.

Ultimately this lead to the Prosecution withdrawing all charges as they could not overcome that this was a case of self defence.
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