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

  • ★★★★★

    Was able to secure an acquittal

    Tuan Phan of Sydney Criminal Lawyers was of utmost importance with his guidance around my…

  • ★★★★★

    Professional and efficient representation

    Very happy to recommend Kent Park. Easy to talk with, organised, very calming at stressful…

  • ★★★★★

    Solid defence and a successful outcome

    I was represented by Tuan Phan from Sydney Criminal Lawyers, Tuan was reliable for both…

  • ★★★★★

    You want a good solicitor? Reach out and speak to Tuan

    Tuan is one the most compassionate solicitors I have ever met. His precision to exacting…

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)