Intentionally or Recklessly Destroy/Damage Property

Our client was charged with Maliciously Damage of property.

His wife claimed that he broke a portable radio that belonged to her, in the course of a domestic dispute between him and her.

Our client insisted that the radio belonged to him, and therefore he could not be guilty of any criminal offence of destroying his own property. It was his word against her’s.

The matter proceeded to defended hearing before the Downing Centre Local Court in February 2013. Before the hearing we obtained our client’s credit card statements at the time in which he purchased the stereo.

The statement clearly showed a purchase of a product from JB Hifi World Square on the date our client said he bought the stereo.

We then obtained proof of purchase from JB Hi fi, which confirmed a purchase of that model stereo on that date.

After the evidence was heard, the magistrate accepted our client’s version of events, and dismissed the charge of malicious damage against our client.

Our client was charged with recklessly destroying property namely her neighbor’s front door gate. It was alleged our client kicked the door three times causing the colorbond panel to fall out of its frame.

Our client instructed us to plead not guilty on the basis that it was the alleged victim who slammed the gate, was the one that caused the panel to fall out of its frame.

We also argued that the damage to the panel had already occurred prior to the incident taking place.

The matter proceeded to a defended hearing at Blacktown Local Court.

The victim and her son gave evidence that our client damaged the fence. After rigorous cross examination by our solicitor, the victim conceded that the gate had been previously damaged and that the victim “may have slammed” the gate.

Our client gave evidence that she did not kick the gate as alleged by the victim, but rather it was the victim that damaged the gate.

Magistrate Seagrave was not convinced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that our client destroyed the gate and hence, the matter was dismissed against our client.

Our client was charged with common assault and destroy property. The allegation was that our client had choked the alleged victim and kicked open her door. Our client instructed us to enter a plea of guilty to the destroy property charge and not guilty to the common assault charge, which our client vigorously denied.

On the day of the Hearing at Burwood Local Court, the prosecution sought an adjournment to get their case better prepared. Our solicitor strongly opposed the adjournment application and the magistrate agreed that the adjournment should not be granted. The charge of common assault was dismissed as no evidence was offered.

In relation to the plea of guilty to the charge of destroy property, the matter proceeded to sentence and our solicitor successfully argued that our client was provoked and that the court should deal with the matter under Section 10.

The court agreed with our solicitors’ submissions and found the offence proved but dismissed without recording a conviction. Our client was very happy with the result. A conviction would have put an end to his future ambition to work in the airline industry.

Our client was charged with intimidation, assault, and damage property.

It was alleged that our client engaged in a sustained attack against his partner including at one point using a coke bottle to strike the victim to the head six times causing bruising and swelling to the victim.

Further it was alleged our client had destroyed her computer equipment and made a number of violent threats.

The matter proceeded to sentence at Parramatta Local Court and our solicitor argued that our client was provoked after being slapped to the face by his partner and that these offences were out of character.

Further it was submitted that convictions would put a end to our clients medical career as an aspiring Doctor.

The court agreed that it could find provocation, and decided not to put an end to our clients medical career.

Our client was placed on long bonds pursuant to Section 10.

Our client was charged with intimidation, assault, and damage property.

It was alleged that our client engaged in a sustained attack against his partner including at one point using a coke bottle to strike the victim to the head six times causing bruising and swelling to the victim. Further it was alleged our client had destroyed her computer equipment and made a number of violent threats.

The matter proceeded to sentence at Parramatta Local Court and our solicitor argued that our client was provoked after being slapped to the face by his partner and that these offences were out of character. Further it was submitted that convictions would put an end to our client’s medical career.

The court agreed that it could find provocation, and decided not to put an end to our client’s medical career.

Our client was placed on long bonds pursuant to Section 10.

Our client was charged with common assault and destroying property. It was alleged our client had heavily thrown the victim who was a shop keeper to the floor twice and destroyed a number of items in the shop.

Our client instructed our firm that he was suffering from severe depression and had acted out of character after an argument with the shop keeper.

The matter proceeded before Magistrate Prowse at Liverpool for sentence.

Our solicitor tendered evidence of our clients mental health and evidence that he was being treated for his depression. Further evidence of our clients good character was tendered and it was submitted the court could deal with this matter pursuant to section 10.

The court agreed and imposed a bond pursuant to section 10 for a period of 18 months.