Our client was a 37-year-old man who was charged with multiple serious assault-related offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and choking, arising from an alleged domestic incident. If the charges had been proven, our client was facing the very real prospect of a lengthy term of imprisonment.
From the outset, the central issue in the case was whether our client had been acting in lawful self-defence.
The matter proceeded to a defended hearing, where the complainant and an independent prosecution witness gave evidence in support of the allegations. The prosecution case relied heavily on their accounts to establish that our client’s actions were unlawful and not justified.
During cross-examination, our legal team rigorously tested the prosecution evidence. Significant issues emerged regarding the reliability, consistency and credibility of both prosecution witnesses. Discrepancies between their accounts, inconsistencies with earlier statements, and aspects of the evidence that did not align with the objective circumstances became apparent under questioning.
These evidentiary weaknesses were central to the defence case. Our submissions focused on the prosecution’s obligation to prove beyond reasonable doubt that our client was not acting in self-defence, a burden that rests entirely with the prosecution once self-defence is raised.
Following careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the Magistrate accepted our arguments and was persuaded that the prosecution could not exclude self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the court found our client not guilty.
All charges were dismissed.
This outcome allowed our client to avoid a criminal conviction, custodial sentence, and the long-term personal and professional consequences that would have followed. The client was understandably relieved and extremely satisfied with the result.
