Breach IVO – Withdrawn, Costs Awarded in Favour of Accused

Withdrawing Breach IVOThe defendant and complainant in this case are separated spouses. The defendant, our client, had two mobile phones and a car which he parked out in front of the premises he had been residing at post-separation before flying to Sydney for a few days. The complainant alleges that one of those phones was our client’s.

An interim Family Violence Protection Order had been placed against our client by his former wife shortly before our client left for Sydney. The former wife then alleged that he was texting and calling her for over two days all the while being abusive and threatening. She produced text messages in a foreign language to police as evidence.

Our client alleged that her wife, the complainant, had accessed his spare phone and car whilst in Sydney and sent those messages to herself in order to get him in trouble with breaching the order after they were unable to agree as to the divorce settlement. He was able to produce flight confirmation of his absence to Sydney but, due to the mobile phone company, was unable to get confirmation of the phone tower to show that his phone was being utilised in Melbourne, and hence was unable to provide the alibi evidence. The police were proceeding with the matter against him based on the complainant’s word and the text messages.

Our client was eventually charged with Breach IVO. We acted on his behalf at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

We were able to produce an affidavit from our client’s friend who called him on the number the complainant alleges he had with him. Our client’s friend was answered by the accused’s ex-wife during the time and an argument ensued about her refusal to give him access to the car even though the accused agreed to. We were able to obtain this witness’ call records to show the triangulation of the two phones and establish that the phone was in Melbourne.

All charges were withdrawn against the client and costs were awarded in his favour.

 


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 14/04/2016