Case Dismissed, Police Pay Costs

Police failed on all fronts

Case Dismissed, Police Pay Costs

Yesterday, Michael Moussa’s team from National Criminal Lawyers® appeared in a hearing at Blacktown Local Court.

Our client was charged with the following:

  1. Crimes Act 1900 – s61 Common assault domestic violence related; and
  2. Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007- s14(1) Contravene prohibition order or restriction in apprehended domestic violence order.

The penalty of the first charge is up to 2 years in prison and the second charge is also 2 years and/or a $5500 fine.

Section 14(4) of the Crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 states that a person MUST go to prison if the contravention of the apprehended violence order was due to violence. To learn more about apprehended violence orders, please click here.

As our client was charged with common assault, an offence involving violence, this put immense pressure on our client as they were in serious risk of going to prison.

WHAT THE POLICE SAY HAPPENED

The police story is as follows:

Our client and complainant are married but separated. Neither have seen each other for over a year. The complainant states that she leaves a hospital and drove through a few intersections. Upon stopping at a red light, our client allegedly got into the car from the passenger side door. Allegedly, our client then begins talking to the complainant whereby an argument escalated. The complainant says our client was pulling her hair while she was driving and hit her in the face while driving. This continued on for 15 minutes until the complainant pulled the car over next to a service station. A stranger appeared from behind the car and opened the door to pull our client out of the car. The allegations involving our client ends there as the complainant says she went to another service station to fill up fuel and go home. Three days later, the complainant tells police her story and subsequently our client was arrested. Police note the lack of injuries on the complainant at the time.

Our client denies any of this happening and was not even in the vicinity of the area when she alleges it happened.

HOW WE DESTROYED THE PROSECUTION CASE

On the face of it, the fact that our client would mysteriously know where and when the complainant would be is extremely difficult to prove. It would seem almost impossible that our client would be standing on an intersection waiting for the complainant to appear while not knowing where the complainant is, the route she drives or if the light would turn red at the exact moment the complainant would be at the intersection. The entirety of the police evidence on the whereabouts of or client on that day included an opal card which allegedly belongs to our client. Our client had an alibi where he stated he was at home with family at the time of the incident. Upon cross examination by our lawyers, it was discovered that Police failed to make ANY enquires or investigations on the truth of the alibi.

Police failed to visit any of the service stations mentioned in complainant’s statement and subsequently, could not corroborate any of the evidence by the complainant with any CCTV footage which would have readily been available at the time. Furthermore, the unknown male in the story did not call police or make any statement as a witness. This was strange as the male allegedly pulled our client out of the car for the complainant’s protection.

The complainant was also cross examined and the lies began to unravel. The complainant was adamant in the witness box that the incident occurred on a certain road. However, the written statement stated a different location entirely. The complainant also gave evidence that it was a certain branded petrol station but later admitted she did not know which brand of service station it was.

MAGISTRATES DECISION

There was so much inconsistencies with the evidence that the magistrate told our lawyers that no evidence is required from our client. The Magistrate described the complainant’s evidence given in court as “fanciful” and the evidence given by the prosecution as “extremely wanting”. The magistrate also noted during the proceedings that the defence does not need to make any closing statements as ‘alarms and whistles’ were ringing as to the unreliable evidence produced by the prosecution.

Our client was found not guilty on all charges.

Furthermore, our lawyers then proceeded to make a costs application to have the police pay for the costs our client incurred. Due to the extreme failure to investigate the matter by NSW police, the magistrate decided to award a cost order in our favour without hesitation under Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

 

 

Book your first free appointment with National Criminal lawyers now.
CONTACT US! 02 9893 1889

Book Appointment

  • Date Format: MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • :