How We Defended a Property Damage Allegation and Revoked an AVO

When you are charged with criminal offences and served with an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO), it can feel as though your future is already decided. Your personal and professional reputation is at risk, and without skilled legal defence, the consequences can be life-changing.

At National Criminal Lawyers®, we specialise in dismantling weak prosecutions and achieving results that protect our clients’ rights and freedoms.

This recent case, finalised at Parramatta Local Court, is a textbook example of how our strategies lead to complete victories. If you are searching for an AVO lawyer near me, need to revoke an AVO, or require an experienced property damage defence lawyer, this is exactly the kind of case you should be reading about.

This case study explores principal lawyer Michael Mousa’s experienced handlings of a subpar prosecution, particularly his Letter of Representations to the police which led to the dismissal of the Destroy or Damage Property charge.

The Allegations

Our client was accused of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property, contrary to section 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The allegation arose from damage found on a vehicle one morning, which the complainant claimed was linked to footage from a neighbour’s doorbell camera. The footage, taken at around 5:00 am, showed a person near the property holding a sharp object. The complainant later told police they recognised the person as our client, leading to both a criminal charge for property damage and an associated Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO).

The matter was initially listed for mention before being set down for a defended hearing at Parramatta Local Court. That is where our defence strategy took shape.

Our Legal Assessment

Upon receiving the police brief, we immediately identified significant evidentiary weaknesses. The prosecution case relied almost entirely on the complainant’s identification of our client from poor-quality CCTV footage. In our detailed letter of representations to the Officer in Charge, we wrote:

“The identification of [our client] as the alleged offender is based on inadmissible lay opinion evidence… The CCTV footage relied upon is of poor quality, and the alleged offender’s face is obscured, rendering identification unreliable.”

We made it clear that the complainant’s recognition was not based on any distinctive features such as gait, mannerisms, or voice. Rather, it was a subjective comparison, which the High Court in Smith v The Queen has ruled cannot be used as admissible opinion evidence unless the witness has a truly unique basis for their recognition.

The Strength of the Alibi

We also brought forward a compelling alibi that directly contradicted the prosecution’s timeline. We advised police in our representations:

“Our office is in possession of an affidavit… which confirms that [our client] was at their residence… during the entire period of the alleged incident. This alibi directly contradicts the assertion that [our client] was the individual captured on the doorbell camera footage at 5:00 am on 17 March 2025.”

The sworn affidavit, from a close family member, confirmed that our client had not left home during the critical hours. This evidence significantly undermined the prosecution’s ability to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt.

Investigative Failures

An important part of our strategy was to highlight the police’s failure to conduct a reasonable and thorough investigation. In our representations, we told them:

“The primary piece of evidence linking [our client] to the alleged offence is the doorbell camera footage… Despite this, the police made no enquiries to search [our client’s] home or otherwise investigate whether clothing matching that pictured in the Ring doorbell camera footage belonged to [our client].”

By pointing out that the police had ignored obvious investigative steps, we cast doubt on the integrity of their case. We argued that this omission was especially serious because the identification evidence was already weak. This not only challenged the prosecution’s credibility but also gave us a strong basis to threaten a costs application for an unreasonable investigation.

Linking the Criminal Charge to the AVO

We emphasised that the APVO’s foundation was entirely dependent on the property damage allegation. As we wrote:

“Given the significant deficiencies in the identification evidence for the underlying property damage charge, the foundation for the APVO is severely undermined. If the charge is withdrawn… the basis for the APVO… is removed.”

This strategic point meant that if we could secure the withdrawal of the property damage charge, the AVO would almost certainly have to go as well.

The Turning Point

The representations concluded with a clear proposal:

“The charge… be withdrawn; the corresponding APVO be withdrawn; and [our client] undertakes to dispense from making an application for costs… The proposal is open for acceptance on or before 5 August 2025.”

We coupled this with a warning that if the matter proceeded, we would seek costs under section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) or a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). This legal and strategic pressure proved decisive.

The Court Outcome

On the defended hearing date at Parramatta Local Court, the police prosecutor confirmed that the property damage charge would be withdrawn. Magistrate Thompson formally dismissed the prosecution’s application for an AVO. No Plea was recorded. No cost application was made, consistent with the agreement in our representations. Our client left court with their record clear and without any order restricting their freedom.

What This Means for You

This case demonstrates that even when charges seem straightforward and doomed, a skilled criminal lawyer in Sydney can completely change the outcome. By challenging the admissibility of identification evidence, presenting a strong alibi, and highlighting investigative failings, we dismantled the prosecution case before the hearing even began.

If you are facing a property damage charge or an AVO, you need more than just someone to stand beside you in court. You need a property damage defence lawyer and AVO specialist who knows how to pressure the prosecution into withdrawing weak cases. This case shows that we are exactly that.

Contact us

If you are searching for an AVO lawyer near me, need to revoke an AVO, or require expert defence against a property damage allegation, contact National Criminal Lawyers® today. We offer a free initial consultation to discuss your matter, assess the prosecution’s evidence, and develop a winning strategy tailored to your case.

Call us on 1800 CRIM LAW and take the first step towards protecting your future.

See below the copy of the court result (personal details redacted).