Theft and Making a Threat to Kill

AdvocacyThis is a case study involving charges of Theft and Making a Threat to Kill.

Our client was charged with one minor offence (Theft), one more serious offence (Making a Threat to Kill), plus a number of breaching bail conditions. The matter proceeded as a consolidated plea of guilty. It also proceeded on a number of occasions as the magistrate and lawyers were both committed to trying to get the best outcome for the client. He was young and had no priors for the Threats to Kill offence.

Hester Kelly represented the client at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on the charge of Theft.

The client received a surprisingly low sentence. This was not a common outcome considering that his offences also breached a County Court Community Corrections Order which he received for a violent offending, and especially considering that they occurred in a family violence context.

The court ultimately imposed a good behaviour bond with a number of conditions for the client to complete. This result for a case that includes charges of Theft and Making a Threat to Kill was achieved due to a combination of two things. One was the fact that the client was referred to appropriate programs prior to and during the period this matter was before the court. The other was due to the good advocacy by the lawyer as to the client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offence.


Hester KellyHester Kelly

Hester is based at our Melbourne office and was admitted to practice in 2014. She previously worked as an Associate to Judge Howard in the County Court of Victoria and was also a solicitor advocate at another Melbourne criminal law firm before becoming a member of Doogue + George.

Hester graduated with First Class Honours in Law in 2012 from Monash University, with a degree in Bachelor of Arts / Bachelor of Laws. She completed two internships at the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and has volunteered with the HIV/Aids Legal Centre in Melbourne.

Visit this page to know more about Hester.

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 24/04/2018