Not Guilty Verdict for Domestic Violence at Parramatta Local Court

Introduction: When a Relationship Dispute Turns Into a Criminal Allegation

Domestic disputes can quickly escalate into criminal prosecutions, even when no real violence occurred. In July 2025, our client K, a 32-year-old woman from Baulkham Hills, found herself accused of common assault (domestic violence related) against her former partner.

The case was listed at Parramatta Local Court, with both the criminal charge and a police-initiated Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) application running side-by-side. Police alleged that during an argument at home, Kushani “struck or pushed” the complainant, causing fear for his safety.

However, as this case would later show, what police allege and what can be proven in court are very different things. Through careful preparation, forensic cross-examination, and strategic negotiation by our Parramatta criminal defence lawyers, the Court ultimately found our client not guilty and dismissed the ADVO entirely.

The Background: A Heated Disagreement and an Overstated Allegation

According to police, an argument occurred one evening in early July 2025 between K and the complainant, S, at their Baulkham Hills residence. Police claimed that our client became agitated during the dispute and allegedly pushed or slapped S on the arm.

When officers attended, they recorded brief statements and applied for an interim ADVO under s 32(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), prohibiting contact, intimidation, and harassment.

K was charged with common assault (DV) under s 61 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). She was granted conditional bail to appear before Magistrate C at Parramatta Local Court.

However, there were no injuries, no corroborating witnesses, and no forensic evidence. The alleged victim’s statements contained inconsistencies and, as later revealed, had been partly recanted before the hearing.

The Legal Framework: Understanding Common Assault (DV)

Under s 61 *Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), common assault occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to fear immediate and unlawful violence, or when they apply force without consent. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units.

When an offence is domestic violence related, police are under strong procedural pressure to prosecute, even in borderline cases. However, guilt still must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the related ADVO is decided on the balance of probabilities.

This difference in standards is critical. A client can be found not guilty of the criminal charge yet still face a civil protection order, unless the defence dismantles both allegations comprehensively.

The Letter of Representations: Early Negotiation Strategy

Before the matter reached hearing, National Criminal Lawyers® issued a Letter of Representations to the Officer-in-Charge, Constable Kaia Chapman of the Hills Police Area Command.

Our letter emphasised:

• The absence of corroborating evidence, with no injuries or medical records produced.
• Inconsistencies between the complainant’s original police version and later follow-up statements.
• The complainant’s partial retraction, admitting that “no assault took place” and that the argument was verbal.
• The lack of independent witnesses despite other residents being home.
• The public-interest concern in prosecuting a matter with minimal prospects of conviction.

We proposed that police withdraw the charge and allow the parties to resolve any interpersonal concerns by consent to a non-admission ADVO.

Although the prosecution refused this proposal prior to hearing, these points became the foundation of our courtroom defence.

The Hearing: Strategic Advocacy in Parramatta Local Court

On 15 October 2025, the case proceeded to a defended hearing before Magistrate C at Parramatta Local Court.

1. Cross-Examination of the Complainant

Our defence lawyers meticulously cross-examined the complainant, highlighting inconsistencies in his testimony:

He initially told police he had been “pushed,” but later said “she raised her hand but didn’t touch me.” When shown photographs taken that night, he conceded there were no visible marks or injuries. He further admitted that both parties had been “yelling at each other” and that he was never scared she would cause harm.

This evidence completely undermined the prosecution’s assertion that our client’s conduct amounted to assault or intimidation.

2. Defence Submissions: Lack of Proof and Credibility Issues

In final submissions, we argued:

The prosecution failed to establish the essential element of intent to apply force or cause fear. The complainant’s inconsistencies and partial recantation rendered his testimony unreliable. The absence of independent or physical evidence made it impossible for the Court to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

We further submitted that even on the lower civil threshold, the AVO application should fail because the Court could not be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the complainant had reasonable grounds to fear future violence.

The Result: Not Guilty on All Counts

After considering the evidence, Magistrate C found our client not guilty of common assault (DV). The Magistrate held that the complainant’s evidence was inconsistent, unsupported, and did not establish unlawful force.

Consequently, the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was also dismissed. The Court found that the complainant had not proven, even on the balance of probabilities, that he held reasonable fears for his safety.

K left the courtroom relieved and vindicated, her name cleared, her record intact, and her life restored.

Broader Implications: Lessons from the Case

This outcome reinforces that domestic violence prosecutions must still meet the high criminal standard of proof. Allegations alone are not enough.

In similar cases, success often turns on:

• Inconsistent or unreliable complainant evidence;
• Lack of corroboration from witnesses or medical reports;
• Police overreach in charging matters better suited to civil resolution;
• Strong pre-trial negotiations through letters of representations;
• Experienced advocacy at hearing to expose contradictions.

Our firm regularly represents clients in Parramatta, Penrith, and across Sydney in common assault (DV) and stalking or intimidation cases where the evidence is weak or exaggerated.

Why Choose National Criminal Lawyers®

At National Criminal Lawyers®, our domestic violence defence lawyers in Sydney, Parramatta, and the Hills District are experts in:

• Defending assault and AVO charges from first mention to defended hearing;
• Cross-examining witnesses to reveal inconsistencies and exaggerations;
• Negotiating charge withdrawals or Section 10 non-convictions;
• Protecting professional licences and reputations at risk from criminal allegations.

We were proudly rated Best Criminal Lawyers 2018–2025 and are known for our record of not-guilty verdicts in contested assault and AVO matters.

Whether you’ve been charged with common assault (DV), destroy property, or are facing an ADVO application, our lawyers are ready to act fast, defend your rights, and secure the best possible outcome.

Conclusion: Proven Defence, Proven Results

For K, a well-prepared defence and fearless courtroom advocacy made all the difference. Despite a serious domestic violence allegation and months of anxiety, our team at National Criminal Lawyers® achieved a complete acquittal and dismissal of all proceedings.

If you are facing an assault or AVO charge, contact National Criminal Lawyers®, Sydney’s leading domestic violence defence team.

📞 Call 1800 CRIM LAW today for expert advice and immediate representation.

See below the copy of the court result.