The Court: Dandenong Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Daniel Walsh
The Charges:
- Intentionally Causing Injury
- Recklessly Causing Injury
- Common Assault
- Throw Stone to Injure
The Allegations:
The client was charged with a range of violent offences for an incident that occurred at a house party and spilled into the street.
The allegations were that the client had attended this party uninvited and then ran and punched someone when they were not looking. A fight briefly ensued before both parties fled down the street.
It was then alleged that the client was among a group of people who followed the complainants down the street, throwing large rocks at them, before another physical altercation occurred and punches were thrown. The complainants all suffered injuries as a result, most notably lacerations to the head and face.
The client was one of three people charged. On the initial night, the complainants made statements describing the clothing of the alleged offenders, but stated that they did not know who they were.
A few weeks later, the complainants made further statements, claiming that they had identified the three alleged offenders via Facebook, specifically identifying our client as he was present in the profile picture of the alleged main offender.
The client participated in a recorded interview with police and stated that whilst he was present at the party, he was not involved in any of the violent altercations.
At Court:
This case presented complex legal issues regarding the identification of the client. Typically, alleged offenders are identified by complainants through identification parades or photo evidence, in which the complainant points out the alleged offender from a lineup of other people or from a selection of photos that match the general description given. However, in the age of social media, Facebook identification is becoming more common.
In this case, the complainants had heard the alleged main offender referred to by a surname. They searched that surname on Facebook and then purported to confirm that the person shown in the display picture was the alleged main offender. The display picture also showed our client, whom the complainants sought to state was involved in the incident.
What was notable about this was that the father of one of the complainants had done most of the research. He sat the complainants around the computer and asked if these were the people who assaulted them. The father had not witnessed any of the alleged assaults. Our solicitor, therefore, sought to challenge the reliability and admissibility of the identification evidence. This went through multiple hearings and eventually culminated in a contest mention that lasted most of the day.
The issues in the Prosecution case were discussed extensively, and it was further noted that even if they were to present their Facebook evidence to the Magistrate, they still had substantial concerns with the differing versions of what our client had allegedly done and the extent of his involvement.
The Outcome:
The matter eventually resolved when the Prosecution offered to withdraw all charges on the basis that our client would not pursue any application for costs against them.
This would have saved the time of having to go through a contested hearing and risk a Magistrate returning a finding of guilt, making it an excellent offer that our client accepted.
This was a hard-fought case that highlighted the importance of a thorough understanding of the law regarding admissibility and the use of evidence. To convince the Prosecution to withdraw all charges, given their serious nature, without having to go to a hearing, was an outstanding outcome for our client.
