Case Study
Successfully Defending IVO Breach Charges
Case Overview
Court: Ringwood Magistrates Court
Address: 39 Ringwood St, Ringwood VIC 3134
Between May 2022 and 30 July 2022, several allegations were made against our client which lead to him being charged with three offences of Contravene Family Intervention Order, one offence of using a carriage service to harass, one offence of Persistent Breach of Family Violence Intervention Order, and one offence of threat to damage property.
Persistent Breach Of IVO Charges
Our client had sent a text message to the complainant alluding to arson of their home. However, in accordance with Section 198(a) of the Crimes Act, given that our client is the sole owner of the property and not the complainant, this text message cannot be proof of an IVO breach.
Moreover, claims were made against our client regarding controlling behaviours he had allegedly displayed between May 2022 and 30 July 2022. These claims were not supported with evidence by the complainant and hence lack any specificity, along with the lack of a factual dispute that these events had occurred. Similarly, insufficient evidence was provided by the complainant with respect to the charge of using a carriage service to harass. A total of 5 pages of text message screenshots failed to provide the entirety of the conversation, and once again cannot prove that our client had exhibited such behaviour.
Following this, an alleged video of our client lighting gasoline was brought to light, leading to the fourth charge of the IVO breach. In spite of this, the video was never provided to the defence and therefore cannot be confirmed on its credibility. In all, the allegations of the persistent IVO breach had been denied since the complainant lacked any form of specificity or credibility.
Successful Defence
The Defence called for various clarifications regarding the claims of controlling behaviour and use of text messages to harass. The defence had also sought for the video to be provided for confirmation.
Following extensive discussions with the Prosecutor, an agreement was made to create an application to withdraw all charges. The client then gave instructions to seek costs.
The total sum of application for costs was $10,134.80, keeping in mind that the prosecution had been provided with the itemised invoices. Though the Prosecution were not in agreement with the quantum of costs, they eventually sought a stay for payment of 3 months, which was granted.
Need Guidance on Protecting Your Rights?
Every family law situation is unique, but you don’t have to navigate it alone. Speak with our experienced Melbourne family lawyers to understand your legal options