Una Ebsworth
This is a real case study by one of our lawyers. The person who is in charge of this area in the firm is Una Ebsworth. Una is a Director and LIV Accredited Criminal Law Specialist at Doogue + George, recognised by Doyle's Guide as a Preeminent Criminal Defence Lawyer in Victoria (2026). With over 15 years of experience, she acts in complex fraud, drug prosecutions, homicide, sexual offences, and appellate work to the Court of Appeal and High Court of Australia.
View full profile →This is a case study on dishonesty offences resulting in a withdrawal of the charges.
What is alleged to have occured?
The accused was a 60-year old man who claimed that his neighbour had struck and injured his right knee whilst the neighbour was reversing his car out of the accused’s driveway. The accused subsequently made a claim for medical benefits through the TAC. Further investigation by both the TAC and the police resulted in the laying of charges against the accused by both bodies, alleging that he had made a false statement to police in relation to the accident, and had obtained a medical benefit from the TAC to which he was not entitled.
He was charged with:
- Make false statement to police
- Obtaining a medical benefit to which one is not entitled (Transport Accident Commission)
What happened at court?
We acted on the client’s behalf at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court.
The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter went to a contested hearing. evidence of the only eyewitness for the witness, she accepted that her back was turned at the time that the car was reversing out of the driveway and that she did not see whether or not the car struck the accused.
What was the result?
Following the evidence given by the eyewitness, the police could not maintain their prosecution and withdrew the charge against the accused, as did the TAC.
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
