Una Ebsworth
This is a real case study by one of our lawyers. The person who is in charge of this area in the firm is Una Ebsworth. Una is a Director and LIV Accredited Criminal Law Specialist at Doogue + George, recognised by Doyle's Guide as a Preeminent Criminal Defence Lawyer in Victoria (2026). With over 15 years of experience, she acts in complex fraud, drug prosecutions, homicide, sexual offences, and appellate work to the Court of Appeal and High Court of Australia.
View full profile →This is a case study on trespass with intent to steal and theft at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, where all charges were withdrawn after corroborating evidence explained the fingerprint evidence.
The accused was a 27 year old man with a number of prior Court appearances for deception and drug-related offences.
What is alleged to have occured?
He was charged with trespassing with intent to steal and theft of a laptop computer from a bungalow at the rear of a property in Footscray. There was a latent fingerprint left at the property, on the window sill. The laptop was never recovered.
The accused pleaded not guilty, stating that he had attended the property prior to the date of the offence as his partner’s brother was residing there at the time, which explained why his fingerprint was found at the property. The accused’s instructions were corroborated by his partner and his partner’s brother.
What happened at court?
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The matter was listed for a contested hearing.
What was the result?
Following negotiations with the police they withdrew the charges against the accused on the basis that they would not be able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt when the fingerprint was left in the face of the evidence of the accused’s partner and partner’s brother.
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
