Published February 2026
Assault charges withdrawn following successful negotiations
Perrella Legal represented a young professional facing two assault charges arising from a late-night altercation in Northbridge. Despite significant prosecution evidence, we identified a viable defence argument and public-interest considerations supporting a more proportionate resolution.
Following negotiations, both assault charges were withdrawn and replaced with a single disorderly behaviour charge. The Court subsequently granted a spent conviction order, substantially reducing the potential impact on our client’s professional future.
A late-night search for food after back-to-back social events ended with a young professional nursing a broken nose, a hangover and two assault charges.
The evening had started much more innocently. Our client had attended two social events and, by the early hours of the morning, had consumed too much alcohol and eaten too little. Looking for food before heading home, he ended up at a kebab shop in Perth’s entertainment precinct. What followed was a messy confrontation involving several people. The prosecution alleged that our client had committed two assaults during the incident. The evidence against him was not insignificant and, after reviewing the brief, we considered that the prosecution case was strong in a number of respects.
Our client was particularly concerned about the consequences of assault convictions. He was a young professional with career ambitions and an otherwise strong personal history. Even relatively minor convictions had the potential to create difficulties well beyond the penalty imposed by the Court.
Our task was therefore not simply to minimise the fine. The more important objective was to reduce the seriousness of the charges and, if possible, preserve his prospects of obtaining a spent conviction. That required a realistic assessment of the evidence. After reviewing the prosecution material, we identified that although our client had played a role in starting the confrontation, the events that followed were more complicated than the assault charges alone suggested. The other participants had responded with significant force and, by the end of the incident, our client himself had sustained a broken nose. In simple terms, although our client may have started the fight, the other participants certainly finished it. That did not excuse his behaviour. However, it was relevant to whether prosecuting him for two separate assault offences was the most proportionate way to resolve the case.
We also identified a viable defence argument arising from the way the incident had unfolded. When combined with the broader public-interest considerations, that provided a basis to approach the prosecution about resolving the matter on substantially less serious terms.
We commenced detailed negotiations. Our proposal was that both assault charges be withdrawn and replaced with a single charge of Disorderly Behaviour. That distinction was important. Two assault convictions would have carried a very different character from one public-order offence, particularly for a young professional concerned about employment and future opportunities. After negotiations, the prosecution accepted our proposal.
Both assault charges were withdrawn. In their place, our client agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of Disorderly Behaviour. That substantially reduced his criminal exposure and placed him in a much stronger position for sentencing. The focus then shifted to ensuring that the remaining offence did not create an unnecessary long-term barrier to his future.
We prepared the sentencing case carefully and obtained numerous character references from people able to speak to our client’s otherwise excellent character, work ethic and standing in the community. Supporting material was also assembled to explain the circumstances of the offending and the potential professional consequences of a conviction. The aim was to demonstrate that the incident was out of character, had occurred in the context of excessive alcohol and poor judgment, and was not reflective of any broader pattern of violent or antisocial behaviour.
When the matter came before the Magistrates Court, the Court had the benefit of that material. The Magistrate noted the preparation that had gone into the case and did not hesitate to grant the spent conviction application. The final outcome was therefore very different from the position our client had initially faced.
There were no assault convictions. Instead, the matter was resolved by way of one lesser Disorderly Behaviour offence, together with a spent conviction order.
For our client, that meant the legal consequences of one poor night were kept as limited as possible and his professional future was largely protected.
The case also illustrates the value of looking beyond the charges themselves and considering whether the prosecution can be persuaded to adopt a more proportionate outcome.
Where the evidence is strong, the best result may not always come from taking every issue to trial. Sometimes careful negotiation can produce a significantly better result by narrowing the charges, reducing the factual seriousness of the case and creating a stronger platform for sentencing.