This is a case study on charges of non-fatal strangulation and unlawful assault resulting in the withdrawal of the non-fatal strangulation charge and in a diversion plan for the remaining assault charge.
Non-fatal strangulation is a relatively new offence in Victoria. This offence involves a person intentionally and without lawful excuse choking, strangling or suffocating a family member. This includes applying pressure to the front or sides of the person’s neck, obstructing or interfering with the person’s respiratory or accessory respiratory systems, or impeding the person’s respiration. Importantly, just touching a person’s neck (with no application of pressure) is not enough to constitute this offence.
What is alleged to have occurred?
The allegations were that the incident occurred in the context of a verbal argument, where our client was said to have put their hand around their family member’s neck.
Our lawyer engaged in negotiations with the prosecution, including putting forward arguments about our client’s physical capacity to engage in the conduct alleged. The prosecution was not willing to withdraw the non-fatal strangulation charge at first instance, so the matter progressed to contest mention.
What happened at court?
At contest mention stage, the prosecutor agreed that the charge of non-fatal strangulation would be withdrawn, and confirmed that the case would proceed on the single charge of unlawful assault. Our lawyer canvassed the prospect of Diversion with the prosecution. The prosecutor indicated they would be open to considering this further.
Where a person wishes to accept responsibility for offending behaviour, Diversion offers a way of avoiding a formal finding of guilt. When Diversion is granted, the accused person is placed on a Diversion Plan for up to 12 months with various conditions. Provided they comply with the conditions, the charges will be discharged at the expiry of the Plan. Diversion is usually only available for people who have no criminal history, and for relatively low-level offending. It is more difficult to obtain Diversion where the offending involves family violence.
We had previously assisted our client to obtain material including character references and proof of engagement with psychological services. Our lawyer provided this material to the prosecution, along with detailed submissions, to persuade the police that our client should be recommended for Diversion on the remaining charge of unlawful assault. After considering this material, police agreed that Diversion would be appropriate in this case.
What was the result of the non-fatal strangulation and unlawful assault charges?
The matter proceeded as a Diversion hearing at Court, with the magistrate indicating at the outset that they had reservations about granting Diversion. Character references, a psychological report, and confirmation of family mediation were provided to the Court to provide a more holistic picture of our client and their circumstances. Our lawyer made fulsome submissions in relation to the context of the incident, our client’s personal circumstances, their engagement in treatment, and their excellent prior character. The Magistrate ultimately agreed that our client was suitable for Diversion, and placed them on a Diversion Plan. The Plan included conditions that our client be of good behaviour, continue to engage in psychological treatment, and write a letter of gratitude. In the circumstances, this was an excellent outcome for our client.
Maya George
Maya is based in our Melbourne office and has experience in a wide range of criminal matters. Formerly a Judge's associate in the Criminal Division of the County Court, she has practised exclusively in criminal defence and believes every person accused of wrongdoing deserves strong and capable representation.Maya appears regularly in Court on behalf of clients charged with summary and indictable offences. In preparing each matter, Maya prioritises diligence, a non-judgmental approach, and providing clear and honest advice to her clients.
View Maya George'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 23/07/2025
