The Court: Melbourne Children’s Court
The Lawyer: Lucy Massouras
The Charges:
- Home Invasion
- Aggravated Burglary
- Theft
- Intentionally Causing Injury
- Recklessly Causing Injury
- Common Assault
The Allegations:
This matter involved three co-offenders and our client.
All three co-accused and our client were working on motorbikes in the parents’ garage of one of the co-offenders. A group of other youth have passed, and an argument has occurred between the groups. The second group of teenagers have gone inside the house next door. The four co-offenders then entered the house without permission. Several of the occupants of the home have locked themselves in a bathroom in the house, upon seeing the co-offenders enter, due to fear. The co-offenders were yelling at the occupants to open the door or they would break it down. As the door opened, the co-offenders began grabbing each of the occupants and removing them from the bathroom and emptying their pockets.
One of the co-offenders has taken a baseball cap from one of the occupants and then punched him in the face, causing his nose to break. The four co-offenders have then left the house.
At Court:
As all offenders were under 18 at the time of the offence, their matters were heard in the Children’s Court, a specialist court that deals with crimes committed by those the law considers a child.
Importantly, concerning this matter, our client did not punch the occupant in the face or take his property. Our client had no priors and was assessed to see if he qualified for the diversion program.
Unsurprisingly, the Magistrate refused to place the co-offenders on a diversion program in this matter, finding that the seriousness of the charges made an open court finding important.
One of the co-offenders was more involved in the offending than the others, specifically the one who stole property and injured the victim. This offender and two others were all sentenced on the same day. The one who injured the victim was put on probation for 12 months, with the other two given probation for nine months. They all had no prior offences on their record.
Our client was not sentenced at the same time as the other three offenders because our solicitor and the prosecution were still discussing our client’s involvement.
When the matter reached the court, almost nine months had passed since the incident. In this situation, the court often grants parity between co-offenders. This means those similarly involved in the same offence and circumstances should get a comparable sentence.
We were able to distinguish our client from the other co-offenders, as many statements said our client assisted the victim after his nose was broken by giving him a towel for the blood. Our solicitor could also show that he had kept himself out of trouble in the nine months that had passed and had no more association with the other co-offenders.
The Outcome:
The Magistrate decided not to find parity with the co-offenders due to our solicitor’s submissions and instead ordered that the client be placed on a nine-month good behaviour bond. The bond was without conviction.
This case evidences several things, including the importance of skilled legal representation navigating a complicated legal process, especially involving serious offences.
