Withdrawing Assault in Company With Others, Robbery, and Theft

Assault in Company With OthersThis is a case that involves withdrawing charges of Assault in company with others, Robbery, and Theft.

Our client was with a large group of friends at a fast food chain at around 12am before leaving and walking home. Three members of his group set upon two young males on the street, demanding they hand over any cash and valuables, and threatening to hurt them if they don’t. The young boys complied with the demands and handed over their mobile phones, before the large group of boys all left the scene.

The two victims provided detailed statements to the police with descriptions of the offenders. CCTV from the restaurant was obtained to confirm the identity of the people involved. Victoria Police distributed still images taken from the CCTV on their Facebook page and on CrimeStoppers, where a number of people called in to identify our client. Using this evidence in combination, the police alleged that our client was the main offender.

Our client was then charged with two counts of Robbery, two counts of Theft, and two counts of Assault in company with others. We represented him at the Broadmeadows Children’s Court.

The client admitted to being present but emphatically denied being involved in the incident during his police record of interview. He said that he had been present at the restaurant but had no idea what the other boys were going to do, and stood away from the main group as the incident was occurring, not knowing what to do.

We prepared written submissions which were sent to the police informant and the prosecution in advance of the first court date. We argued that the CCTV (and the subsequent identifications on Facebook and CrimeStoppers) had no evidentiary weight in identifying the offenders, as the client had already admitted to being there and it did not show the incident or who was involved. Further, we submitted that there were other boys who were depicted on the CCTV footage that also matched the victim’s descriptions, and the police could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was our client.

At the first mention, further negotiations were held with the prosecution where we strongly maintained that the police were not able to prove that our client was involved in the robbery. We also argued that the police had no evidence of an agreement between our client and the boys involved in the robbery so as to establish complicity.

The prosecution ultimately withdrew the charges of Assault in company with others, Robbery, and Theft and had the full matter struck out at the first mention. It was an excellent result for the client.


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 27/04/2017