Sex Offender Registry Offences – Fine
Our client is on the Sex Offender Registry and was charged with failure to comply with reporting obligations and providing false information. He had been found guilty in the past of possessing child pornography. He had then had a child and not told the Police that he was living with the child. There were a number of offences and, on the face of it, they were serious charges.
Bill Doogue represented our client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
Our client received a fine which was an exceptionally good result.
We were able to access the details of his previous conviction which showed that the child pornography that he had possessed was of girls aged between 16 years of age and not of pre-pubescent children or infants. There was also a compelling psychological reason on why he had not reported, which related to how traumatised he was by being on the Sex Offender Registry and how he had been treated by the Police. We had an extremely powerful report from a psychologist and Queen’s Counsel appearing for him which all helped in getting the outcome for these charges that he committed.
Accredited Criminal Law Specialist for over 17 years and a criminal defence lawyer for over 25 years.
Bill specialises in defending corporate crime cases and defending serious sexual offences charges. Bill has expertly and successfully defended high profile, high-pressure cases and is highly respected by the Courts, police and his peers. Bill runs the Melbourne office and enjoys his involvement in advising on the higher level strategy that should be used to defend cases.
Visit Bill's Melbourne criminal lawyer profile to read more about his background and experience. You can also follow him on Twitter.
We offer a free first consultation with people on the Sex Offender Registry who would like to discuss any issues they are having regarding compliance or possible suspension of their reporting obligation.
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