The Court: Melbourne Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Mike Brown
The Charges:
- Conduct Endangering Life
- Conduct Endangering Serious Injury
- Recklessly Causing Injury
- Intentionally Causing Injury
- Prohibited Person Use a Firearm
- Possession of a Firearm
- Trafficking a Drug of Dependence
- Possess a Drug of Dependence
- Dealing with Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime
The Allegations:
It was alleged that our client argued with an associate in the Crown Casino, then followed him out into the street and fired four shots at him, one of which hit the victim in the foot. The victim then walked away. He did not seek immediate hospital treatment and refused to make a statement to police. A week later, our client was placed under arrest. Police found on him a handgun (not the one used in the earlier shooting), a large amount of cash suspected of being the proceeds of crime and 6.3 grams of methylamphetamine.
There is relatively clear CCTV footage from inside the casino, some poor quality footage from street cameras (but not of the shooting itself), and some clear footage sufficient to put our client inside a building in close proximity to the shooting scene shortly after the shooting. There were a dozen civilian witnesses who apparently saw or heard something when the shooting took place. However, their accounts contained largely competing descriptions of what the shooter looked like, and therefore were overall unhelpful to the prosecution’s case. The gun was never located.
In relation to the possession charges, all items were found inside a backpack worn by our client at the time of the arrest. In relation to the trafficking charge, although the drugs found were a traffickable quantity, the prosecution otherwise sought to rely mostly on circumstantial evidence to support their case on this charge.
At Court:
The allegations were obviously very serious. The prosecution at first tried to upgrade the head charge to attempted murder on the basis that our client shot at someone four times in relative close proximity; our solicitor strongly opposed this because the evidence, in our view, simply did not support a murderous intent. Having looked very closely at the crime scene photos, our solicitor discovered that all four bullet holes were some 15 to 30 cms above ground, essentially indicating that all four shots were aimed below knee level. To verify this, our solicitor travelled out to the crime scene with a measuring device and took photos of the bullet holes.
This was a worthwhile exercise because we were then able to present those photos to the informant and prosecutor on the return date and convincingly argue that our client, if he was the shooter, did not intend to do more than simply scare the victim by firing at the ground or below the knees. The prosecution was then content to allow the matter to stay in the summary jurisdiction, and ultimately, our solicitor convinced them to withdraw the charge of Conduct Endangering Life and proceed with the alternative charge of Conduct Endangering Serious Injury. This was a significant win for the client, which our solicitor achieved through the ‘leave-no-stone-unturned’ approach we employ for all our matters.
The other significant charge was one of trafficking methylamphetamine, which our solicitor successfully persuaded the prosecution to withdraw. Our solicitor contended that whilst the client was found with 6.3 grams, being a traffickable quantity according to Schedule 20 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, none of the usual accoutrements of trafficking were found in his possession or after a search of his apartment. Our solicitor argued that our client was not found with multiple mobile phones, scales, or bags, as were usually found in cases of trafficking, and the police also did not have any surveillance or telephone intercepts. Our solicitor said that the drugs found on our client were therefore more consistent with personal use. This was another significant win for the client, which our solicitor achieved by case conferencing with a thorough understanding of the materials.
This was a strong prosecution case concerning the shooting incident, given the series of CCTV footage tracing our client from inside the casino to the streets outside and then to a building nearby after the shooting. While some footage was of poor quality, the evidence placed our client near the scene shortly before and after the shooting. Our client would be taking a real risk in running a contest, noting the seriousness of the charges. Our client ultimately agreed to make an offer to resolve the matter before the three-day contested hearing. At that point, our solicitor commenced a week-long case conference that eventually saw the matter resolved to charges as follows: Conduct Endangering Serious Injury, Recklessly Cause Injury, Prohibited Person Use Firearm, as well as the various drug ‘possession only’ charges.
The Outcome:
The client was happy with this resolution, and we proceeded to brief very experienced counsel for the guilty plea court date to ensure the best result for the client, given the seriousness of the matter. The Magistrate ordered that the client serve a term of imprisonment. The client did much less gaol time than he would have if he had pleaded to the original charges, minus the alternatives.
This case shows the value and importance of thorough preparation and effective case conferencing, which can only be achieved by having a hard-working and experienced criminal lawyer involved early on.
