This is a case study of an armed robbery resulting in a non-custodial sentence.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client and a co-offender attended at a service station earlier in the day and surveilled the area. They returned a short time later carrying weapons and with the co-offender covering his face. The intention was to rob the service station. The attendant noticed the weapon and activated the emergency button which automatically closes the door and calls local police. The pair walked away. On their path, they came across a young man walking on his own. The man was robbed at knife point by both offenders, who demanded that he provide his phone and wallet. The young man obliged and then ran away in the direction of the train station.
Police were called. The unit that was actually responding to the duress alarm from the service station attended to the young man. Descriptions of the offenders were given. A canine unit was employed which resulted in the dogs leading the police to the home of the co-offender, where both offenders were located in possession of the stolen mobile phone. They were arrested and interviewed.
What happened at court?
Our client faced the following charges:
Kristina Kothrakis represented our client at the Melbourne County Court.
Our client was in his early 20’s at the time of the offending. Kristina Kothrakis submitted that by virtue of his age and the limitations of his diagnosis of a behavioural condition, the Court should place greater emphasis on rehabilitation, as opposed to just focusing on punishment and deterrence. Kristina submitted that the Court can still impose a tough penalty without the need to send him to gaol; further, that a gaol term could have the potential to interfere with the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and expose him to adverse influences in the custodial setting. Our client was struggling with alcohol and drug use but had made a good headway prior to the plea. He had good family support and good prospects for rehabilitation.
What was the result?
The Judge agreed with Kristina and imposed a non-custodial sentence. The client was convicted and was placed on a Community Corrections Order for a period of 3 years.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client and a co-offender attended at a service station earlier in the day and surveilled the area. They returned a short time later carrying weapons and with the co-offender covering his face. The intention was to rob the service station. The attendant noticed the weapon and activated the emergency button which automatically closes the door and calls local police. The pair walked away. On their path, they came across a young man walking on his own. The man was robbed at knife point by both offenders, who demanded that he provide his phone and wallet. The young man obliged and then ran away in the direction of the train station.
Police were called. The unit that was actually responding to the duress alarm from the service station attended to the young man. Descriptions of the offenders were given. A canine unit was employed which resulted in the dogs leading the police to the home of the co-offender, where both offenders were located in possession of the stolen mobile phone. They were arrested and interviewed.
What happened at court?
Our client faced the following charges:
Kristina Kothrakis represented our client at the Melbourne County Court.
Our client was in his early 20’s at the time of the offending. Kristina Kothrakis submitted that by virtue of his age and the limitations of his diagnosis of a behavioural condition, the Court should place greater emphasis on rehabilitation, as opposed to just focusing on punishment and deterrence. Kristina submitted that the Court can still impose a tough penalty without the need to send him to gaol; further, that a gaol term could have the potential to interfere with the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and expose him to adverse influences in the custodial setting. Our client was struggling with alcohol and drug use but had made a good headway prior to the plea. He had good family support and good prospects for rehabilitation.
What was the result?
The Judge agreed with Kristina and imposed a non-custodial sentence. The client was convicted and was placed on a Community Corrections Order for a period of 3 years.
Kristina Kothrakis
Kristina has significant experience in criminal trials and also holds a degree in Science, majoring in Psychology, an invaluable area of knowledge, as many of her clients suffer from psychological disorders.Kristina strives to achieve the best possible result for all her clients. Skilled, decisive and assertive, Kristina demonstrates dedication, care and professionalism at all times.
View Kristina Kothrakis’ 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 25/02/2013
