Threats to Inflict Serious Injury, Threat to Damage Property, and Use Telecommunications to Harass – Diversion

Our client was a man in his late sixties who had otherwise lived a blameless life. The charges arose out of a heated discussion between the client and a call centre operator, with whom he had an argument about various tasks he was endeavouring to do on behalf of his mother, who was in poor health. These were:

  • Threats to inflict serious injury
  • Threat to damage property
  • Use telecommunications to harass

The charges were serious and several of them were indictable carrying the possibility of large fines and/or imprisonment. Of more significance was the likelihood of a police record on a plea of guilty or being found guilty after a contested hearing.

Shaun Pascoe represented our client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

An application was made to the Police informant (who charged our client for the offending) for consideration of a diversion. Through a process of negotiation with the Prosecution, the more serious offences were removed and the case proceeded as a diversion to the less serious charges of threat to inflict serious damage and threat to damage property.

The matter was successful diverted and subject to the completion of certain conditions imposed by the Court, our client avoided a disclosable criminal record.


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his background and experience.

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