Case study: Not Guilty of Breach Intervention Order & Behave in an Obscene Manner in a Public Place
- Shaun Pascoe
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
In this case study our client was found not guilty of three charges: Breach Personal Safety Intervention Order x 2 and Behave in an obscene manner following a two-day contested hearing in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court.
Table of Contents
Summary of Facts
Our client was the respondent to a Personal Safety Intervention Order in favour of the complainant (protected person). It was alleged that on two occasions in May 2023, our client had threatened the complainant and his mother on the footpath to his business that he operated in South Yarra.
It was alleged that our client had threatened the complainant on both occasions that he was going to bash him and destroy his business. It was also alleged that our client had made obscene remarks to the complainant's mother.
On both occasions, the exchanges between our client and the complainant were captured on CCTV but critically the footage had no audio.
Our client was interviewed and emphatically denied the allegations. It was also the case that our client was a successful business entrepreneur and had no criminal history whatsoever. It was our assessment that our client gave a very genuine and convincing interview.
The only witnesses to our client's alleged behaviour was the complainant himself and his mother.
What Happened at Court
Our client instructed our office that he would contest the allegations. During summary case conference negotiations at both mention and the contest mention, the prosecution were invited to discontinue proceedings on a 'without costs basis'. We highlighted the following as reasons why the prosecution ought to discontinue the prosecution:
A threat to the complainant could not be discerned by watching the CCTV footage as it did not capture the audio of the exchanges;
The body language of our client was not consistent with the violent threatening behaviour that the complainant had alleged;
Despite the contention that the complainant was in fear and was terrified of the complainant, the CCTV footage simply did not support this. At various stages the complainant as seen to be smiling and laughing and was clearly conversing with our client over an extended period;
The nature of the evidence was word-on-word, and our client would have the benefit of several legal directions a Magistrate would have to give themselves at the conclusion of evidence;
That our client's fulsome record of interview and denials was of itself a basis for reasonable doubt having regard to his good character.
The prosecution declined our offer to withdraw on a without costs basis at the contest mention stage of proceedings and the case was set down for a contested hearing (2 days).
Charges
Court Outcome
All prosecution witnesses and the police informant gave evidence and were cross-examined at the contested hearing. During cross-examination of both the complainant and his mother the inconsistencies between their evidence and what the CCTV displayed were laid bare. The allegation that the complainant was terrified and frightened of our client simply wasn't apparent at all when the video footage was viewed.
We called character evidence on behalf of our client, and our witness gave superb evidence detailing her long friendship with our client, but also the varied community projects our client had volunteered both time and money towards.
At the conclusion of a two-day contested hearing where we briefed counsel, our client was acquitted on all charges, and we made a further application that Victoria Police pay our client's legal costs which was granted by the presiding Magistrate.
