The Court: Dandenong Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Daniel Walsh
The Charges:
The Allegations:
Our client was charged with a range of assault-related charges, including affray and robbery, relating to an incident that occurred at a shopping centre food court.
The allegations were that our client had attended a shopping centre in the company of some friends. His friend is then alleged to have started punching the complainant and demanding money. It is then alleged that our client, along with others, have joined in on the assault, resulting in the assault and affray charges.
Following the assault, it was alleged that members of the group had taken the belongings of the complainant, resulting in the robbery and theft charges.
The complainant could only identify one person involved and was unaware of anyone else. Police relied on CCTV footage to identify the remaining alleged offenders.
CCTV footage showed our client entering the shopping centre with the named friend and leaving with the same friend. However, the footage of the actual incident was unclear.
The key to this case was identification and whether the police could establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that our client was involved. Typically, alleged offenders are identified by complainants through identification parades or photo book evidence, where the complainant points out the alleged offender from a lineup or from several different photos of people who match the general description given.
However, in this case, the prosecution relied solely upon CCTV footage.
At Court:
The prosecution was trying to rely upon the accused’s presence to establish that he was complicit in the offending, even though he was not physically involved in the assault or robbery.
Their position was flawed, as the prosecution would need to prove and point to specific evidence that our client actively assisted or encouraged the offending behaviour.
During case conferencing, extensive discussions were had regarding the issues in the prosecution’s case, and it was pointed out that the footage did not show our client doing anything at the time of the incident.
The Outcome:
The matter was eventually resolved during case conferencing, with the prosecution offering to withdraw all charges on the first court date, on the basis that our client would not pursue any application for costs against them.
The client would have had to take the matter to a hearing to obtain costs. Our client wanted the matter finalised and accepted the withdrawal.
This case was resolved favourably for our client due to our lawyer’s thorough understanding of the law regarding complicity. Getting the prosecution to withdraw all charges without requiring a hearing was an outstanding outcome for our client.
