Going to Court? Book Your Free First Appointment

Saved Pages

Save pages and articles you’re most interested in to read later on.


Not Guilty of Affray and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm in Company

RELATED TO: Affray, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Assault Charges, Public Order Offences
CRIMINAL CASE

Our client is a 26 year old university student from Western Sydney.

He was charged together with two other men in relation to a brawl between two groups of men outside a hotel in the Sydney CBD, during which a man was ‘bottled’ in the face causing significant injuries.

Our client was accused of being the person who committed the ‘bottling’, and was charged with Affray and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (AOABH) in company.

Affray carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison while AOABH in company comes with a maximum of seven years.

Surveillance footage captured several men punching and kicking one another, and an independent witness identified our client as the person who used the bottle.

Our client could indeed be seen in the footage partaking in the melee, but the use of a bottle was not captured.

Our client’s instructions were that his actions were undertaken in self-defence and he did not use a bottle at any time.

The two other men who were charged pleaded guilty to both Affray and AOABH, and were sentenced accordingly. They were represented by two other specialist criminal defence law firms.

One of our defence team’s primary tasks was to ensure our client’s case was kept in the Local Court rather than being referred to the District Court, as the maximum sentence that can be applied to each charge in the Local Court is two years in prison.

We successfully persuaded the DPP to do this.

Having carefully scrutinised the CCTV footage and identified several inconsistencies in and between the statements of the prosecution witnesses – comprising the independent witness and the other men involved in the altercation – we advised our client to maintain his plea of not guilty and defence both charges.

The case eventually reached a defended hearing during which we stressed the inconsistencies within and between the statements, as well as procedural flaws in the identification process, and successfully raised the issue of self-defence.

Our cross-examination systematically dismantled the prosecution case, and as the prosecution was unable to ‘negative’ the possibility that our client acted in self-defence, the presiding magistrate found our client not guilty of both charges.

What Our Clients Say SEE ALL

  • ★★★★★

    Professional in his communication

    I am extremely grateful to Fahim Khan from Sydney Criminal Lawyers for his incredible dedication…

  • ★★★★★

    Guided me towards a positive outcome

    I got a better result that what I had anticipated, as my case was dismissed.…

  • ★★★★★

    Good experiences

    Good experiences, can recommend these guys!

  • ★★★★★

    Very pleased

    Very pleased with how Jason Koh handled the case and the result that he achieved,…

Going to Court? Call For Your Free First Appointment

Main Menu

Follow Us

Search Our Site enter search term and press GO

Saved Articles & Pages

APPOINTMENT BOOKING FORM * mandatory fields

Preferred date for conference
Preferred time for conference
Briefly describe your situation:
Do you have a court date?

Your Review & Rating * mandatory fields

Review Text *
Rating (optional)