The relationship between our client and his wife from Thailand soured. He was her visa sponsor to remain in the country. They have one child together.
What is alleged to have occured?
She made allegations (which were largely uncorroborated) about ongoing domestic violence between them, obtained a Family Violence Protection Order against our client, and was in the process of lodging an application to remain in the county despite a defacto visa sponsorship on the basis of suffering domestic violence (which is one of the only ways in which a party on a spousal visa can apply to remain without the support of their sponsor).
The client disputed any violence (although agreed there had been numerous verbal arguments in keeping the circumstances of a crumbling marriage). He was facing charges of:
We represented the client at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court.
This matter proceeded through both a summary case conference and contest mention where these issues were raised with the prosecution – who decided they would proceed to contested hearing in any event.
When it came to the morning of the contested hearing, and the complainant was warned in relation to perjury charges, she declined to give evidence and instead sought to rely on s.18 (ability to seek permission from the court to give evidence against a spouse).
What was the result?
The prosecution, faced with the dilemma of a non-compliant witnesses who was the main witness in their case, agreed to withdraw all charges and the Court struck them all out.
What is alleged to have occured?
She made allegations (which were largely uncorroborated) about ongoing domestic violence between them, obtained a Family Violence Protection Order against our client, and was in the process of lodging an application to remain in the county despite a defacto visa sponsorship on the basis of suffering domestic violence (which is one of the only ways in which a party on a spousal visa can apply to remain without the support of their sponsor).
The client disputed any violence (although agreed there had been numerous verbal arguments in keeping the circumstances of a crumbling marriage). He was facing charges of:
- Threats to kill
- Unlawful assault
We represented the client at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court.
This matter proceeded through both a summary case conference and contest mention where these issues were raised with the prosecution – who decided they would proceed to contested hearing in any event.
When it came to the morning of the contested hearing, and the complainant was warned in relation to perjury charges, she declined to give evidence and instead sought to rely on s.18 (ability to seek permission from the court to give evidence against a spouse).
What was the result?
The prosecution, faced with the dilemma of a non-compliant witnesses who was the main witness in their case, agreed to withdraw all charges and the Court struck them all out.
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
