Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

If you agree that you have committed the offence and the police are able to prove all the elements of the offence, it is best to plead guilty at an early opportunity to receive the maximum discount. Currently the maximum discount available for an early plea of guilty is 25% of the sentence.

Furthermore, the early guilty plea shows the Court that you have remorse and contrition for your actions.

Our Lawyers at National Criminal Lawyers work closely with you to ensure that we obtain all necessary paper work at increasing the chances of obtaining a non-conviction or section 10.

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm can be punished with a prison sentence of up to 2 years (If heard in the Local Court) or up to 7 years (If heard in the District Court).

Please note that the penalties mentioned are reserved for the worse case offending and are unlikely to be the penalty you receive.

If you decide to plead not guilty you will need to prepare to go to a Defended Hearing.

A defended hearing is where all the witnesses of that case are called to give evidence. The witnesses are both examined by the prosecution and tested by your defence lawyers.

National Criminal Lawyers are experts at these hearings and can advise you on what the police must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Some of the possible defences available for those charged with affray can include:

• If you were compelled to act in a certain way due to the circumstances, or the threats of another you may be able to argue “Duress”;
• If your actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring, you may have the defence of “Necessity”;
• If you were defending yourself or another OR yours or another’s property you may have a Defence of “Self-Defence” even in situations where “Pre-Emptive Force” is used. Moreover, at times there be a circumstances where you may argue that there was “No duty or need to retreat”.

The Courts are not bound by statistics however there must be reasonable consistency in sentences. A Magistrate or Judge should have regard to what has been done in other cases. In Green [2011] HCA 45, the plurity judgement of French CJ, Kiefel and Creennan JJ stated:

“Equal Justice” embodies the norm expressed in the terms “equality before the law”. It is an aspect of the rule of law.

For Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm offenders 20% received full time imprisonment whereas 43% received a good behaviour bond.

In NSW, a court can impose any of the following penalties for a supply prohibited drug charge.

• Prison sentence
• Home Detention
• Intensive correction order (previously periodic detention)
• Suspended sentence
• Community service order (CSO)
• Good behaviour bond
• Fine
• Section 10

However, from 24 September 2018 new penalty’s will be replacing the above. They are as follows:

• Full time Imprisonment
• New ICO (ICO) with a home detention condition available
• New Community Correction Order (CCO)
• Fine
• New Conditional release Order (CRO)

Our client is a 31-year-old Nepalese lady residing in North Sydney.

She was in a domestic relationship with her partner for approximately two years. It was alleged that our client had assaulted her partner causing actual bodily harm in a public street.

Police alleged that our client had assaulted the alleged victim whilst being seated in the front seat of her car.

After seeking advice from our firm, our client plead not guilty in respect of the charge.

Given that a plea of not guilty was entered in respect of the charge, we were entitled to see the evidence against her. On an initial view of the evidence, it appeared that police had two independent witnesses that would give evidence that they observed ‘rumbling’ in the front seat, and that they saw our client on top of the alleged victim.

Whilst this appeared to be strong evidence initially, at the hearing, we cross-examined both of these witnesses extensively as to what they actually observed, how they apparently saw what they saw, and the distance between them and the car in question. It became apparent, after stringent cross-examination, that the witnesses did not in fact see exactly what was going on in the car, and that they could have been mistaken as to who was assaulting who.

In our final submissions to the Court, we drew the Courts attention to the discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses, and the fact that what occurred in the car could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. In turn, we submitted that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assault in fact took place, or that self-defence could be ruled out by the prosecution.

This case illustrates that despite there being, initially, strong evidence against an individual, it does not necessarily mean that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt all of the elements of the alleged offending.