Charges of Common Assault Withdrawn Prior to Hearing

Our client, a professional man in his 40's resided with the complainant (his wife) and their children in New South Wales. One morning, tensions escalated after our client discovered that the complainant had changed her relationship status on social media from married to single the night before.

The complainant informed our client that she was leaving the house with the children. As she attempted to collect them, there was a brief physical exchange in which it was alleged that our client grabbed her wrist and pushed her backwards during an argument. The complainant contacted a friend who later became a prosecution witness, reporting that she was in distress. Police were called and our client was arrested at the scene and charged.

Our team carefully reviewed the circumstances of the alleged offence and obtained further context around the couple’s dynamic, including that the parties had a mutual agreement in place to manage interactions involving the children, stemming from the complainant’s history of trauma and post natal depression. The complainant later advised police that she suffers from post natal depression and that she had a prior agreement with our client that should she ever have an episode and place the children or herself in danger, our client had her consent "to do whatever was reasonably necessary" to resolve the situation.

For the prosecution to prove their case, they needed to prove the following:

1. That our client committed a striking, touching or application of force against the complainant;
2. That it was committed without consent; and
3. That it was committed without lawful excuse.

It was then argued by our team to the prosecution prior to hearing that:

-       The complainant’s version of events lacked the necessary elements to prove the crime.

-       The parties had a pre-existing agreement in place to help navigate such altercations.

-       On the evidence, the prosecution would fail to prove that there was no consent for the actions of our client and, our client would succeed in a lawful excuse defence.

After reviewing our representations and considering the evidence, the prosecution withdrew the charge before the matter reached defended hearing.

As a result of this, our client was able to avoid the stress and costs of a contested hearing and was able to retain his good character and move on with his life.

‍