Prosecution withdraw assault and property damage charges after alleged victim didn’t attend hearing at Fairfield Court

Our client was a 34-year-old man who is a hard working and a reputable member of the community.

He volunteered his time to promote a harmonious relationship amongst Australian citizens, Indian migrants, and the society in general by cultivating mutual respect through increased social interaction, sports, recreation, and other voluntary activities of significant community benefit.

The police alleged that he assaulted and made intimidatory comments to his wife, the alleged victim, by hitting her on the arm.

The police charged him with common assault, intimidation, and applied for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) against him. The AVO prevented our client from contacting, communicating or approaching the alleged victim, who was his wife.

He consistently and adamantly denied those allegations, saying that it was not his character to do such a thing. He did not have any previous criminal record.

The stress of the court proceedings was having a significant toll on him as he was worried about losing his job from the prospects of getting a criminal conviction and the damage to his reputation in the community from allegations that he said were false.

Through open and constant communication between our team of lawyers and our client, a strong defence case was formulated for the hearing in court. This also helped alleviate some of his stress.

On the day of hearing at the Fairfield Local Court, the alleged victim failed to attend court.

The investigating police officer contacted the alleged victim who indicated to police that she did not wish to give evidence against her husband.

The prosecution applied to the Court for the case to be adjourned. Our team of criminal lawyers strongly opposed the adjournment indicating to the court the effect of these charges on his life, the community expectations to finalise matters with expediency, and that the court could have no confidence that the alleged victim will appear at court on the next occasion.

An adjournment would significantly prejudice our client.

The Fairfield Local Court Magistrate, after balancing all the considerations, refused the adjournment.

This caused the prosecution to withdraw all charges, including the AVO. The Court dismissed all charges.

Our client was free to move on with his life without having to worry any further about these allegations.

Print