In 2021, a prosecution commenced alleging our client stole a motor vehicle which was then used in the commission of an arson at a warehouse in the northern suburbs of Perth. After setting fire to the warehouse, it was it was alleged he set fire to the stolen motor vehicle. After reviewing the evidence, we determined that the entirely circumstantial prosecution case was weak and it was worthy of a robust defence at trial.
Whilst our client was ‘seasoned’, he had no history of damaging property, and certainly not by fire. As might be expected, some of his associates were also rather ‘seasoned’ and this meant that much of the proposed evidence which the prosecution intended to rely on emerged from a collection of ‘colourful’ witnesses. The District Court trial was scheduled to proceed on 2 separate occasions, each time adjourned on account of the Office of the DPP encountering problems finding its witnesses. Our submissions to discontinue proceedings were repeatedly declined by the ODPP. Even our application for a permanent stay of proceedings was not granted and so we had no choice but to remain steadfast and prepare for a third trial in August 2025. This did not prevent our continuing endeavours to urge a discontinuance, and finally on the afternoon before the third trial was due to commence, the ODPP agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction on any charge. Whilst our client has endured 4 years of stress and uncertainty, resolution of these matters by way of discontinuance was worth the wait.
