Withdrawing Reckless Conduct Endangering Life and Serious Injury Charges

Car AccidentThis is case that involves withdrawing Reckless Conduct Endangering Life and Serious Injury charges.

Our client was a young man in his early 20s. He was driving home with a passenger in the car after having been out with his friends. At around 3:30 AM, the client went to make a turn into an intersection but misjudged the distance, and accidentally veered into a wrong lane and into oncoming traffic. A police car observed him doing this and had to take evasive action to avoid colliding with the vehicle. The client tried to exit the road as quickly as possible and, in so doing, lost control of the vehicle and collided with a brick fence.

The client and the occupants exited the car and left the scene. At approximately 5:30 AM, the police located the two males walking along the road. The police observed a red mark across our client’s shoulder which was consistent with markings from a seatbelt. Having formed the opinion that the client had been the occupant in a vehicle involved in a collision, the police requested that the client undertake a preliminary breath test. The client refused. Inquiries revealed that he was also on a disqualified driver’s licence.

Kristina Kothrakis acted on the client’s behalf at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court. The charges were:

Both Reckless Conduct Endangering Life and Reckless Conduct Endangering Serious Injury are serious charges under the Crimes Act 1958. Our client was very concerned about the impact that a criminal conviction might have on his future. He was a young man engaged in tertiary education completing a commerce degree, and was also working part-time at a major financial institution.

Kristina conducted a summary case conference with the police and persuaded them to withdraw the two serious charges and to proceed instead on a charge of Dangerous Driving. This was successful and they had agreed to withdrawing the Reckless Conduct Endangering Life and Serious Injury charges. At the plea hearing, character references were tended which had been obtained from the client’s employer. The client had also enrolled in a Road Trauma Awareness Seminar.

The magistrate accepted that the incident was one which is unlikely to be repeated, and was persuaded to deal with the matter by way of a financial penalty.

 


Kristina KothrakisKristina Kothrakis

Kristina has significant experience in criminal trials and also holds a degree in Science, majoring in Psychology, an invaluable area of knowledge, as many of her clients suffer from psychological disorders.

Kristina strives to achieve the best possible result for all her clients. Skilled, decisive and assertive, Kristina demonstrates dedication, care and professionalism at all times.

Visit Kristina’s profile to read more about her 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 27/10/2017