Criminal Defence Case Studies
Intentionally Cause Injury, Criminal Damage & Trespass
Court: County Court of Victoria Melbourne
Charges: Intentionally cause injury Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), Criminal damage Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), Trespass Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic)
225+ Google Reviews
Case Overview
This case study involves a 22-year-old woman facing a significant list of charges, including burglary, dangerous driving whilst pursued by police, and possession of methamphetamine and 1,4-butanediol.
Given her criminal history and the fact that some offences were committed while on bail, she faced a realistic risk of imprisonment. Our focus was to secure a non-custodial outcome so she could address her underlying issues in the community.
Case Background
The client had been released from custody the day before the incident. He contacted his ex-partner to arrange collection of personal property, including identification documents, but she refused and told him not to attend.
The next morning, he went to the property to retrieve his belongings. When told to leave, he refused. He broke the lock on a garden shed and recovered some items, then broke the lock on the security door and entered the house.
Inside, he confronted a man staying at the property, an acquaintance from previous time in custody, and struck him on the head with a torch, causing a bleeding laceration and bruising. The assault continued briefly before the complainant escaped.
Police arrived shortly afterwards, observed the injuries, and arrested our client at the scene.
Our Approach as Serious Assault Defence Lawyers
Our lawyers:
Entered early plea negotiations that resulted in the withdrawal of the aggravated burglary charge.
Ensured agreed facts reflected the short duration of the incident, the absence of a premeditated weapon, and the client's initial lawful purpose for attending.
Obtained evidence of rehabilitation efforts while on remand, including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and accredited programs addressing addiction, anger management, and healthy relationships.
Presented strong submissions on remorse, rehabilitation prospects, and the client's limited history of violent offending.
The Outcome
TThe County Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 416 days' imprisonment, deemed served by time in pre-sentence detention.
The court accepted that:
- The offending was spontaneous and of short duration.
- The client initially attended to retrieve personal property.
- The torch was not brought as a weapon.
- The client had shown genuine remorse and a strong commitment to rehabilitation.
Without the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a 20-month non-parole period.
Why This Case Matters
This case shows how experienced criminal lawyers in Melbourne can use early negotiations, factual refinement, and rehabilitation evidence to significantly reduce the severity of a sentence, even when the client has spent substantial time in custody.
Frequently Asked Questions – Intentionally Cause Injury in Victoria
What does "intentionally cause injury" mean?
It refers to deliberately causing injury either physical or psychological to another person.
What is the maximum penalty?
Up to 10 years’ imprisonment, with higher penalties for aggravated forms of the offence.
Can charges be reduced or withdrawn?
Yes, in some cases, skilled advocacy can result in charges being reduced to lesser offences or withdrawn entirely.
Do I need a lawyer if pleading guilty?
Yes, the way your case is prepared and presented can make a substantial difference to your sentence.
DISCLAIMER
This is a real case study from an actual matter in our files. We always change details in our case studies to protect client confidentiality, but the charge and the outcome are exactly as they occurred in court. We publish these case studies to give a genuine insight into the types of results we achieve and the range of sentences that may be imposed. Every case is different, and we can't guarantee the same result in your matter. We choose to share some cases because they are representative of typical results, and others because they stand out for exceptional outcomes.