Intentionally Cause Injury – Withdrawal Dandenong Magistrates Court
Intentionally Cause Injury Charges:
- Unlawful Assault – s.23 Summary Offences Act
- Intentionally Cause Injury – s.18 Crimes Act
- Recklessly Cause Injury – s.18 Crimes Act
- Unlawful Assault – s.23 Summary Offences Act
- Unlawful Assault – s.23 Summary Offences Act
- Unlawful Assault – s.23 Summary Offences Act
- Assault with Instrument – s.23 Summary Offences Act
- Throw stone to injure – s.7(g) Summary Offences Act
Intentionally Cause Injury Facts:
Our client was charged with a range of violence offences for an incident that occurred at a house party and spilled into the street.
The allegations were that our 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 our 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.
Our 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. Then a few weeks later they made further statements that they had identified the three alleged offenders via Facebook, picking our client out as he was present in the profile picture of the alleged main offender.
Our client gave a record of interview that stated whilst he was present at the party, he was not involved in any of the violent altercations.
Intentionally Cause Injury Result:
This was a case which presented with a complex legal issue around the identification of our client. Normally alleged offenders are identified by complainants through identification parades or photobook evidence, in which the complainant points out the alleged offender from a range of other people in a line-up, or from a number of other photos of people who 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 looked that surname up 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, who the complainants sought to state was also 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. We 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 get their Facebook evidence in before the magistrate, they still had substantial issues with the different witnesses giving differing versions of what our client had allegedly done and the extent of his involvement.
The matter eventually resolved to the Prosecution offering to withdraw all charges on the basis that our client not pursue any application for costs against them.
This would save the time of having to go through a contested hearing and risk a magistrate returning a finding of guilt, so it was an excellent offer that our client accepted.
This was a hard-fought case that was indicative of the importance of a good understanding and knowledge of the law regarding admissibility and use of evidence and a tenacious approach. 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.
