Pursuant to the information, investigators obtained a search warrant to locate the goods alleged to have been stolen. These goods were said to be the subject of the alleged theft and were found at our client’s home. He was subsequently interviewed and provided an explanation as to how he came into possession of the subject goods. He denied any involvement in the actual taking of the goods.
The client had a previous diversion.
We represented the client at the Seymour Magistrates’ Court.
During case conference negotiations, the prosecution was referred to several facts, which in combination, demonstrated that our client was not involved in the actual theft of the goods in question. The prosecution conceded that they could not prove the theft allegation and agreed to withdraw this offence.
The remaining offence (Deal With Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime) was a less serious offence and an application for diversion was subsequently made.
A conviction for a dishonesty offence would have had an adverse impact on our client’s continued employment. Given the circumstances, it was a pleasing outcome for a case that involves the charges of Theft and Deal With Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime.
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 04/05/2018