In late 2024, a 21-year-old man contacted our Perth criminal defence lawyers after being charged with Common Assault arising from an incident in Northbridge. The incident was captured on CCTV and did show our client punching the complainant. However, after carefully reviewing the footage and surrounding circumstances, we formed the view that the punch was capable of being explained by a viable legal defence. Accordingly, we advised our client to plead not guilty and the matter was listed for trial.
What followed was a lesson in how criminal proceedings can sometimes take unexpected turns. Several months before the trial, the prosecution laid an additional charge of Disorderly Behaviour arising from the same incident. Having regard to the available evidence, our client was prepared to accept responsibility for certain aspects of his conduct and instructed us to explore whether the matter could be resolved by way of a guilty plea to the disorderly behaviour charge on an amended factual basis.
We approached the prosecution with a proposal: discontinue the Common Assault charge and resolve the matter with a plea of guilty to Disorderly Behaviour. The proposal was rejected. The prosecution maintained that any defence to the assault allegation should be determined by the Court and insisted that the matter proceed to trial. Then, just one week before the scheduled trial, matters escalated dramatically. The prosecution upgraded the charge from Common Assault to Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), a significantly more serious offence carrying the real prospect of imprisonment. This decision was particularly alarming given that our client had aspirations of joining the Australian Defence Force, and the unresolved criminal proceedings were already delaying his application.
Faced with the prospect of a GBH conviction and a potential term of imprisonment, our client understandably felt frustrated, anxious, and uncertain about his future. We were equally concerned, but for a different reason. Having reviewed the evidence in detail, we considered the prosecution had no realistic prospect of securing a conviction for Grievous Bodily Harm.
When the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) assumed conduct of the matter, we renewed negotiations and put forward the very same proposal we had originally offered to WA Police months earlier: resolve the proceedings by way of a plea of guilty to Disorderly Behaviour on an amended statement of facts. This time, common sense prevailed. The ODPP accepted the proposal and the matter was finalised without the need for a contested trial. Our client was sentenced for Disorderly Behaviour, receiving a fine and a spent conviction order.
The result: no assault conviction, no GBH conviction, no imprisonment, and our client was able to move forward with his plans to serve in the Australian Defence Force.