We acted for a client charged with offences of assault and obstruct public officer, as well as an allegation of breaching a move-on order. Unfortunately this was the client had a prior spent conviction for somewhat similar offending which had occurred a substantial period of time ago. A further conviction for serious offences would likely place the client’s employment at risk. There was no clear or easy way to deal with the more serious charges as the evidence at first blush the evidence appeared overwhelming.

We obtained the evidence and progressed the matter towards a trial. On review, there were clear deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. Firstly there appeared to be no legal basis for the police to have issued a move-on order in the first place. The client was simply standing outside a different licensed premises to the one from which they were removed, and there was no indication they were about to commit any breach of the peace or other offence. Secondly even if there was a basis for the move-on order to be issued, the client appeared to have been taking reasonable steps to comply with it. There were multiple police officers giving the client different orders, and to make matters worse, a random third party bystander got involved and also started giving the client orders. Given this, it appeared arguable the client had a defence to breaching the move-on order as they were making a reasonable attempt to comply with it. Thirdly, the alleged assault on police was a very quick, reflexive strike which was arguably self-defence to any unlawful arrest by the police involved.

Given the above issues with the prosecution case, we progressed the matter to trial. Shortly prior to trial, following successful negotiations we were successful in agreeing to plead guilty to the breach of the move-on order, and the other significantly more serious obstruct and assault police charges were dismissed. At sentencing the client received a small fine.

This was an excellent outcome which secured for the client a minor conviction that would not affect their future employment. It further avoided the risk of a trial and the always present risk the client would be convicted of all three charges which likely would have had a substantially negative impact on the client’s future prospects.