The Court: Geelong Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Ryan Robertson
The Charges:
- Stalking
- Use Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Cause Offence
- Common Assault
- Wilfully Enter Property
- Commit an Indictable Offence Whilst on Bail
The Allegations:
The client had a verbal dispute with his partner, which prompted her neighbour to contact the police. Under pressure from her roommate, the client’s partner made a statement declaring that she felt unsafe around the client for the sake of her safety and that of her children. As a result of this statement, a Family Violence Intervention Order was placed on our client, protecting his partner and her children from being reached via any communication. The client was released on bail with the same conditions under the Family Violence Intervention Order.
Following this, our client continued to communicate with his partner for a period of four days, until she returned to the police station, retracting her previous statement in which she had expressed fear for her own safety and that of her children, and provided a statement indicating that she had no complaint. Unfortunately, it was revealed to police that the client had continued to communicate with the complainant in contravention of the order imposed by the Magistrate. Our client was then interviewed by the police, during which he made admissions to breaching his bail conditions by communicating with his partner over the previous four-day period.
The allegations were serious and had significant ramifications for the client, who owned and operated his own company and was concerned about further convictions due to the nature of his employment.
At Court:
Through negotiations with the police prosecutors, we were able to show that the client and his partner were in an ongoing, healthy and stable relationship.
This was indicated by the partner’s own statement to police as well as her application to vary the Family Violence Intervention Order to allow their relationship to continue. It was also of assistance to the matter that the client’s partner was also communicating via telephone and text messages. She responded to messages and frequently called the client.
Our solicitor also sought plea material, and the client was able to obtain several character references that all attested to his overall good character. He also provided letters from several former partners who spoke highly of him.
Additionally, the clients’ prior offences were both dated and irrelevant to the circumstances of the charges. It was beneficial for the court and the prosecution to see that it had been almost two decades since the client’s prior offending, and that the charges were out of character.
Our solicitor further indicated in negotiations with the prosecution that the dispute was not seen by the person who reported it, and that the roommates of the client’s partner were not reliable witnesses for the police. This essentially meant that the prosecution had to take our client’s and his partner’s statements as given to the police. This was a benefit to our case, as our client had been honest in all his interviews with the police, making full and frank admissions to certain charges, and his partner had made a statement withdrawing her prior complaint.
Through negotiations, our solicitor also pointed out to the prosecution that one of the assault charges was alleged to have been communicated via text messages. Still, there was no evidence to support the charge. Further reading through the hundreds of messages, there was not one message that was threatening or menacing.
The Outcome:
From the summary case conference stage, the prosecution withdrew all charges except for one charge of using a carriage service in a manner a reasonable person would find harassing and one charge of breach of bail. After submissions on the client’s character, employment, lack of history and their ongoing relationship, the Magistrate handed down a sentence of a $500 fine with a conviction recorded. This satisfied the client’s needs, as the charges involving violence had been withdrawn.
