In the end, the Magistrate agreed with the submissions made by our solicitor and was persuaded to impose a $500 fine with conviction.

This was a fantastic result for our client as his situation had changed dramatically following professional and strong negotiations with the police prosecution. Our client initially thought that his options were limited, given his charges. If we had not successfully argued that he was acting in self-defence to the assault charges, our client would have been likely to be put in prison that day. Instead, he walked out of the court with a fine.

Our client was concerned about having his dog put down. Once the council confirmed they would not seek any orders for the dog’s destruction, the client instructed our solicitor to plead guilty to the charge.

The client entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to a non-conviction fine of $1500. The client was ordered to pay the council’s costs for impounding the dog and compensation for the other side’s veterinary expenses. The Magistrate did not make any orders regarding the destruction of the dog.

Following the matter’s conclusion, the council notified the client in writing of its intention to destroy the dog. When the council notifies an owner of this intention, the owner has the right to make written or oral submissions to the council by a specific date as to why they should not destroy the dog.

Our solicitor discussed the case with the council, as they had previously indicated they would not be seeking destruction of the dog. The client entered a guilty plea based on this assumption. Following lengthy discussions, the council reconsidered its position and instead forwarded the client an intention to declare the dog dangerous, which the client ultimately accepted. The dog was subsequently handed back to the client.

Under the Road Safety Act, the Loss of Traction charge carries a fine, no demerit points and no mandatory minimum time off the road. On a plea of guilty, the client received a moderate fine and no time off the road. This was an excellent outcome as the client needed his licence for work.

The Magistrate was satisfied that diversion would be appropriate under the circumstances and authorised the client to be placed on the Diversion Program. The conditions attached to the Diversion Program included a small donation to charity and to be of good behaviour for six months. A diversion means no criminal conviction is recorded.

Typically, cases involving an employer and a breach of trust are taken very seriously by the courts, so this was an excellent result.

Further discussions were had with prosecutors, during which our solicitor highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the charges against our client beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors agreed and subsequently withdrew all charges on the contest mention date.

The prosecution agreed to withdraw the charge against the client, and a formal application to withdraw the charge was made in court on the first mention date of the matter. This was an excellent outcome as the client was saved the stress and expense of running the matter to a contested hearing.