Our client, B attended at an apartment where he believed that the ex partner of his sister was present. Our client, angered by injuries caused by the ex-partner to his sister, intended to assault the ex-partner and forced his way inside. B discovered that the ex partner was not present and eventually calmed down and left the premises. The person who was actually present, D, gave an initial statement where she described B calming down, handing over the scissors he was armed with and then leaving.
Some weeks later D provided another statement to the police wherein she alleged that B had led her upstairs in the apartment and told her he wanted to have sex with her.
B then faced charges of aggravated burglary and false imprisonment and a charge of assault with intent to rape founded on the second statement.
We negotiated for the withdrawal of the assault with intent to rape charge and the matter was dealt with as a plea in the County Court. Josh Taaffe represented our client at the Melbourne County Court.
The prosecution wished to lead evidence of the alleged assault and demand for sex as a circumstance of the plea. We argued relying on the case of R v Newman & Turnbull that any circumstances that could be the subject of a further serious charge could not be used to aggravate the offences to which B pleaded guilty. Eventually the prosecution conceded the point.
B was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment with 21 months suspended for a period of 2 years and a two year community based order with 50 hours of community work.
As an instructing solicitor Josh has specialised in handling complex matters, such as murder and terrorism trials, including State and Commonwealth Supreme Court trials. Josh is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist.
Visit Josh’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