Published April 2026
Grievous bodily harm charge reduced following defence negotiations
Perrella Legal represented a young man whose common assault prosecution was escalated to a grievous bodily harm charge just one week before trial. Despite CCTV footage showing the alleged punch, we challenged the strength of the prosecution’s case and maintained that the evidence did not establish all the elements of the more serious offence.
Following negotiations with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the assault allegations were discontinued and the matter was resolved by a plea of guilty to disorderly behaviour. Our client received a fine and a spent conviction order, avoiding an assault conviction and the risk of imprisonment associated with the GBH charge.
Defending a grievous bodily harm charge in Perth
A single punch captured on CCTV began as a relatively straightforward Common Assault prosecution, escalated dramatically into a Grievous Bodily Harm charge just one week before trial, and ultimately ended without our client receiving any assault conviction at all.
Our client was 21 years old when he contacted us in late 2024 after being charged with Common Assault arising from an incident in Northbridge. The prosecution had CCTV footage showing him punch the complainant. On its face, that evidence appeared problematic. But the fact that an act is captured on CCTV does not necessarily determine whether a criminal offence has been committed. We reviewed the footage closely, considered the circumstances leading up to the punch and examined whether the conduct was capable of being explained by a viable legal defence. Having done so, we formed the view that our client had a proper basis to contest the assault charge.
We advised him to plead not guilty and the matter was listed for trial.
Several months before the hearing, the prosecution added a charge of Disorderly Behaviour arising from the same incident. Our client was prepared to accept responsibility for aspects of his behaviour that night, even though he continued to dispute criminal liability for the punch itself. That created an opportunity to explore whether the case could be resolved without the need for a contested assault trial. We proposed that the prosecution discontinue the Common Assault charge and allow the matter to be finalised by way of a plea of guilty to Disorderly Behaviour on an amended statement of facts. The proposal was rejected.
WA Police maintained that any defence to the assault allegation should be determined by the Court and insisted that the Common Assault charge proceed to trial. Our client therefore continued preparing to defend the matter. Then, just one week before the scheduled trial, the prosecution substantially increased the seriousness of the case. The Common Assault allegation was upgraded to Grievous Bodily Harm.
The consequences were significant. A conviction for Grievous Bodily Harm carried a very real risk of imprisonment. What had begun as a summary assault prosecution had suddenly become a far more serious criminal case with potentially life-changing consequences. The timing also added to the pressure. Our client had plans to join the Australian Defence Force, and the unresolved criminal proceedings were already delaying his ability to move forward with that career. Understandably, the sudden escalation from Common Assault to Grievous Bodily Harm caused considerable anxiety. Our concern, however, remained focused on the strength of the prosecution case.
Having reviewed the available evidence closely, we did not consider that the State had a realistic prospect of proving Grievous Bodily Harm. The CCTV showed the punch, but the existence of footage did not resolve every legal and evidentiary issue. The prosecution still had to prove all elements of the upgraded charge beyond reasonable doubt, including the necessary connection between our client’s conduct and the injury relied upon. The case then moved from WA Police to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. With the ODPP assuming conduct of the prosecution, we renewed negotiations.
Importantly, we did not substantially change the proposal that had previously been rejected. We again submitted that the proceedings could be resolved appropriately by discontinuing the assault allegation and accepting a plea of guilty to Disorderly Behaviour on an amended factual basis. This time, the proposal was accepted.
The Grievous Bodily Harm charge did not proceed to trial. Nor did the original Common Assault charge. Instead, the case was finalised by way of a plea to Disorderly Behaviour.
Our client was sentenced to a fine and, importantly, the Court granted a spent conviction order.
The final outcome was substantially better than the position he had faced only days earlier. There was no Common Assault conviction. There was no Grievous Bodily Harm conviction. There was no immediate imprisonment. And there was no enduring conviction left on his record.
For a young man hoping to begin a career with the Australian Defence Force, those distinctions mattered.
The case also demonstrates why the seriousness of a charge does not always reflect the strength of the evidence supporting it.
A prosecution can become more serious as a matter progresses, but the underlying evidence must still be tested carefully. In this case, close analysis of the CCTV, the alleged injury and the available legal defence informed a negotiation strategy that ultimately achieved a far more proportionate outcome.
What began with a punch in Northbridge and threatened to end with a Grievous Bodily Harm conviction instead concluded with a Disorderly Behaviour offence, a fine and a spent conviction.