How Our Parramatta Criminal Defence Lawyers Secured the Withdrawal of Serious Assault Charges
When Assault Charges Threaten Your Future…
In June 2025, a young man’s life was suddenly upended by serious domestic violence allegations. Facing two criminal charges, common assault (DV) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV), our client stood accused of a violent altercation that allegedly involved a knife. If convicted, he faced not only a criminal record but also the possibility of imprisonment under sections 59 and 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
At National Criminal Lawyers®, our Sydney and Parramatta assault defence lawyers have a long track record of protecting clients from unfounded and procedurally flawed prosecutions. This case demonstrates how strong legal analysis, procedural precision, and a persuasive Letter of Representations can lead to the complete withdrawal of serious assault charges, before the matter ever reaches hearing.
The Facts: A Heated Dispute Turns into a Police Charge
The case concerned P, a 20-year-old Guildford resident with no prior criminal history. He lived in a share house alongside several occupants, including the complainant, M.
According to the Police Facts Sheet, on the night of 20 June 2025, a verbal argument broke out around 9:30 pm regarding religion and living arrangements. Police alleged that P produced a knife and pointed it at the complainant, after which a physical altercation ensued. The complainant, allegedly fearing for his safety, restrained P and both parties sustained minor lacerations to their arms and faces.
A witness, S, told police he saw a knife, though his account shifted multiple times. Other housemates entered the garage only after the fight had ceased and did not witness the alleged assault.
Crucially, both the complainant and the witness later declined to provide formal written statements, leaving police with little more than inconsistent body-worn footage and incomplete verbal accounts. Despite this, police charged our client with two domestic violence offences and applied for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) to protect the complainant.
The Charges: What the Law Says
1. Common Assault, Section 61, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
A person is guilty of common assault if they intentionally or recklessly cause another person to fear immediate and unlawful violence, or if they apply force without consent. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
2. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Section 59(1), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
This offence requires proof of an assault that results in physical injury that is more than transient or trifling. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment, or seven years if domestic violence is involved.
In domestic violence (DV) contexts, these offences are treated with particular seriousness by NSW courts. Even minor physical disputes between household members can result in AVOs, criminal charges, and mandatory police prosecution.
However, the law also recognises key defences, including self-defence under section 418, lack of intent, and unreliable or inadmissible evidence. These defences formed the foundation of our case.
Our Letter of Representations: Exposing Flaws in the Prosecution
Before the matter proceeded to hearing, National Criminal Lawyers®, led by Principal Lawyer Michael Moussa, issued a comprehensive Letter of Representations to Constable Andrew Pereira of Cumberland Police Area Command. This document became the turning point of the entire case.
Our legal team meticulously analysed the Brief of Evidence, uncovering multiple fatal deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, including:
- Failure to Serve a Written or Recorded Statement
Under section 183(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), prosecutors must serve written statements from all witnesses they intend to rely upon. No such statement was ever served by the complainant, nor was there a recorded DVEC (Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief). As a result, the court would be required to refuse to admit the complainant’s evidence. We cited DPP v Chaouk & Anor, where the court held that failure to comply with statutory service requirements renders key evidence inadmissible.
- Inconsistent Witness Testimony
The witness, M, alternated between claiming he saw the knife and admitting, “I didn’t saw… you don’t need to saw anything. These contradictions destroyed his reliability and created reasonable doubt about the alleged weapon.
- Lack of Corroboration and Forensic Evidence
Other housemates confirmed they did not witness the fight. Police were unable to locate the alleged knife or any bloodied clothing, leaving the prosecution’s version unsubstantiated.
- Failure to Investigate Self-Defence
P consistently stated that the complainant produced the knife and attacked him first. The failure to investigate this alternative version constituted an unreasonable investigation under s 214(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).
- Costs Warning and Public Interest
We notified police that continuing prosecution would expose them to costs orders under s 214 CPA or a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), citing Allerton v DPP and R v Johnston. The letter argued that proceeding without a complainant statement or corroboration was unreasonable, unmeritorious, and contrary to public interest.
Strategic Resolution: A Consent ADVO Without Admissions
Our proposal was clear and strategic:
- All charges to be withdrawn;
- A Final ADVO to be made for two years on a non-admission basis;
- No application for costs, provided police discontinued prosecution.
This proposal balanced both legal and practical outcomes: protecting our client from a conviction while assuring the complainant’s safety through civil measures. It demonstrated to the prosecution that withdrawal was the only reasonable course, both legally and ethically.
The Outcome: Charges Withdrawn, Reputation Protected
On 13 October 2025, before the Magistrate at Parramatta Local Court, our arguments prevailed.
- Both criminal charges, common assault (DV) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV), were withdrawn and dismissed.
- A Final Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was made by consent and without admissions, effective for two years (13 October 2025 – 12 October 2027).
Our client walked out of court without a conviction, without a criminal record, and free to rebuild his life.
Lessons for Similar Cases
This case highlights the importance of early legal intervention. In domestic violence matters, police often lay charges based on partial or unreliable accounts, even when complainants later retract their statements. However, the Criminal Procedure Act demands procedural fairness, and when police fail to meet these obligations, skilled defence lawyers can expose the weaknesses before trial.
Common scenarios where similar outcomes can occur include:
- Complainant unwilling to testify or provide a written statement.
- Body-worn footage inconsistent with police allegations.
- No forensic or corroborating evidence.
- Self-defence or mutual combat situations.
In each case, a well-prepared Letter of Representations, grounded in statutory and case law, can persuade police or the Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw charges early, saving clients time, stress, and money.
Why Choose National Criminal Lawyers®
At National Criminal Lawyers®, our assault defence lawyers in Sydney, Parramatta, and across NSW specialise in defending clients against common assault, AOABH, and domestic violence allegations. We are experts in identifying procedural errors, negotiating early withdrawals, and protecting clients from wrongful convictions.
Our firm was Rated Best Criminal Lawyers 2018–2025, and we continue to achieve outstanding results by:
- Conducting deep legal analysis of police briefs;
- Drafting powerful Letters of Representations that cite statutory authorities;
- Leveraging procedural rights under the Criminal Procedure Act;
- Securing non-conviction outcomes, Section 10 dismissals, and case withdrawals;
- Providing transparent, client-focused communication throughout every stage.
Whether you are charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, or domestic violence offences, our lawyers are ready to fight for your rights.
Conclusion: Legal Precision, Real Results
The case of R v P stands as a testament to the power of early defence advocacy. Through a carefully constructed letter, detailed statutory reasoning, and strategic negotiation, National Criminal Lawyers® transformed what appeared to be a serious domestic violence prosecution into a complete withdrawal: no conviction, no record, and no trial.
If you’re facing assault or domestic violence allegations, don’t wait until it’s too late. Early legal action can change everything.
📞 Call 1800 CRIM LAW today to speak with Sydney’s top assault defence lawyers.
See below the copy of the court result.
