Withdrawing Reckless Conduct Endangering Life and Other Charges

TrainThis is a case study on withdrawing Reckless Conduct Endangering Life and other charges.

Our client was a train driver who was accused of collaborating with others to place debris on the tracks of the train he was driving so he could make false WorkCover claims. The police relied on statements of the co-accused who had motives to lie or mislead the investigation.

The client was interviewed in his workplace and was forced to resign but continued to deny the allegations. Upon execution of the search warrant, the police found some minor property which became the subject of much less serious charges unrelated to the main allegation.

We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The charges involved were:

We were able to successfully lobby the prosecution in relation to the unreliability of the evidence against our client. We showed inconsistencies between the accounts of the co-accused with each other and the objective facts.

By careful analysis and through telephone tower evidence, we were able to negate the police case theory suggesting the acing in concert by the three accused. Following a number of appearances, we were able to convince the police that there was no reasonable case to answer and they eventually agreed to withdrawing the Reckless Conduct Endangering Life charge as well as the other main charges.

The client then pleaded guilty to the lesser unrelated charges for which he did not have a defence. For these charges, we successfully argued for a non-conviction adjourned undertaking (good behaviour bond) which the court acknowledged as appropriate in the circumstances.

The client was finally able to engage in legal action against his employer for unfair dismissal. We worked collaboratively with another individual from the time of interview to protect our client’s rights both for the criminal matters and for his employment issue.

 


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 01/03/2018