The Court: Frankston Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Hayden Brodie
The Charges:
The Allegations:
Our client and his wife had been married for six years and share a child together.
One morning, the couple had been arguing whilst our client was completing some household duties. Some nasty comments were exchanged, and our client asked his wife to give him some space. The comments continued, and our client eventually pushed his wife twice in an attempt to get her to leave him alone. Their child was not present during the altercation.
Our client’s wife called the police as a result of the incident. Once police attended, our client was interviewed about a charge of unlawful assault. He made admissions to pushing his wife during the field interview and was advised that he may be charged with an offence.
Additionally, each of the parties was spoken to, and our client was served with a Family Violence Safety Notice (FVSN). The FVSN named both our client’s wife and child as protected persons. He was summoned to attend court a few days later concerning the FVSN.
Family Violence Safety Notices (FVSNs) are a tool that police can utilise when they attend a family violence incident and believe, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary to ensure the safety of an affected family member, to preserve the property of an affected family member or to protect a child who has been subjected to family violence committed by the respondent.
A Family Violence Safety Notice acts as a temporary intervention order before the formal application can be brought before a Magistrate. The application must be brought before a Magistrate within 14 days following the issuing of the FVSN to the respondent.
At Court:
The client attended court for the intervention order himself before engaging our firm. An interim intervention order was made in favour of his wife and child. It was limited in nature and did not exclude him from the property or prevent him from having contact with either party. He was served with a summons to attend court in relation to a charge of unlawful assault on the same day that he was served with a copy of the interim intervention order.
The client attended our office and engaged our solicitor to represent him in both the criminal charges and the intervention order matter. After consulting with our client, it became evident that he was deeply remorseful for his actions and wished to move forward with his relationship with his wife. His wife, through a third party, also made it clear that she wanted to continue the relationship and was not supportive of the intervention order. She had refused to make a statement and had not attended court on the day that the intervention order was initially heard.
The criminal charges were listed in court on the same day as the return date of the intervention order matter. Our solicitor conducted negotiations with the prosecution and pressed the prosecution to recommend a Diversion for our client. The prosecution agreed and filed a Diversion Notice with the court.
Furthermore, for diversion to be considered, the Diversion Coordinator must contact the complainant to gauge their opinion on whether a person should be offered the opportunity to participate in the diversion program. In normal circumstances, the matter must be adjourned for this to occur. As our client’s wife was present in court on the day, she had a discussion with the Diversion Coordinator, and the matter was put before a Magistrate on the same day.
In respect of the Family Violence Intervention Order, our solicitor liaised with the Family Violence Liaison Officer. It was discovered that police had not conducted a risk assessment, as the interim order did not exclude our client from the address. Our solicitor argued that the application should be withdrawn as the affected family member (being our client’s wife) was not supportive of the application, the child was not present during the incident, and a diversion notice had been filed for the criminal charges.
The Outcome:
Ultimately, a Magistrate reviewed the criminal matter and decided that it was appropriate for our client to participate in the diversion program. A diversion plan was formulated with the sole condition that he complete a men’s behaviour change program.
The Family Violence Liaison Officer spoke with our client’s wife at court to confirm her view about the intervention order and ultimately agreed to withdraw the application against our client.
Our client was very appreciative of the opportunity to avoid a criminal record as he works in a professional environment, and any entry on his criminal history would likely result in termination. Furthermore, our client and his wife were grateful that the application for an intervention order was withdrawn, and they could return to their lives together as they were before the incident.
