The newly introduced offence of non-fatal strangulation in family violence matters has added a serious layer of complexity to intervention order cases in Victoria. This case study of non-fatal strangulation in Melbourne highlights how our lawyer successfully defended a client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, resulting in the most serious charges being withdrawn.
What are the circumstances of the allegations?
Our client was facing multiple charges, including:
- Breaches of a Family Violence Intervention Order (IVO)
- Serious assault offences
- The newly introduced charge of non-fatal strangulation of a family member
The matter was particularly complex. At the time of the alleged offending, an interim intervention order was in place protecting the client’s ex-partner. The prosecution relied on:
- CCTV footage allegedly showing our client strangling the complainant
- Photographs of the complainant’s neck showing alleged strangulation marks
What preparations were undertaken?
During conference discussions, our client stated that their ex-partner had informed them that the intervention order had been varied to allow contact. We meticulously reviewed Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage and found a crucial moment where the complainant told the police that the complainant had altered the order.
While this is not a legal defence, it served as a compelling mitigating factor during sentencing.
Further, we pushed for disclosure of additional CCTV angles, which revealed a very different story: our client was not strangling their ex-partner but was instead pulling the ex-partner’s shirt to remove the ex-partner from a driveway. Therefore, there was actually no incident of non-fatal strangulation in Melbourne and this became a critical piece of exculpatory evidence.
Our client was prepared to plead guilty to several IVO breaches. To present a thorough plea, we took comprehensive personal instructions, covering:
- Work and volunteering history
- Family background
- Long-term goals and future plans
We also gathered strong character references to support the client’s prospects of rehabilitation and to highlight the potential consequences of a conviction on their employment.
What happened at court?
Thanks to our detailed submissions and analysis of the CCTV footage, we successfully persuaded police prosecutors to withdraw the non-fatal strangulation charge, along with all other assault-related charges.
The case proceeded as a plea of guilty to the intervention order breaches. During sentencing, we emphasised:
- The complainant’s encouragement of contact
- Our client’s belief that the order had been varied
- Our client’s remorse and insight into the situation
- Our client’s low risk of reoffending
Non-fatal strangulation in Melbourne: What was the result?
The Magistrate was persuaded by the extensive mitigation materials and our submissions. Ultimately, the court imposed a good behaviour bond, allowing our client to avoid incarceration and continue working.
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 14/04/2025
