The Court: Melbourne Children’s Court
The Lawyer: Tom Woodward
The Charges:
The Allegations:
The client was a child who was charged with numerous violent offences. Three co-offenders in this matter were over 18 years of age and were facing charges in the County Court of Victoria in Melbourne.
This matter involved a violent assault at a train station. There were three victims; two were the victims of the robbery and unlawful assault, and the third victim was a witness who was trying to call the police and was set on by the co-offenders. The third victim suffered four stab wounds and a broken nose and was hospitalised for several weeks due to the injuries sustained.
At Court:
As the client was a child, she was subject to proceedings in the Children’s Court. This was particularly significant in this case for two main reasons. Firstly, the Children’s Court focuses on rehabilitation rather than general deterrence. This means that there are sentencing options available in the Children’s Court that are not available in adult courts. Secondly, it allowed our solicitor to submit to the court that a Group Conference would be appropriate. Group conferences are only available in the Children’s Court and are a form of victim-offender mediation.
The court was satisfied that group conferencing was appropriate in this case, and the matter was adjourned to facilitate this process. The client, our solicitor, the client’s family members, a social worker, a representative for the victim, and a convener attended the group conference. It involved an open discussion of the offence. More importantly, it gave the client significant insight into the offending and allowed her to appreciate the short-term and long-term consequences of her actions.
The Outcome:
In sentencing, the Court considered the client’s positive response to the group conference. Given the serious nature of the offences, the client was sentenced to a 6-month probation order. This sentence allows Youth Justice to be involved with the client and provide ongoing support and supervision.
Due to the client’s age, our solicitor submitted to the court that a criminal conviction may have detrimental effects on the client’s future. The Magistrate accepted the submission that a no conviction disposition was appropriate.
This was a fantastic result, given that one of the client’s co-offenders received a prison term.
