Case Summary
Our client was charged with offences arising from an incident in which a male complainant was allegedly falsely imprisoned and assaulted. A female offender had been identified, while CCTV footage showed a second, unidentified male entering the premises later.
Victoria Police alleged that our client was the unidentified man captured in the footage and charged him with trespass, intentionally causing injury and related offences.
The charges were serious, and a conviction could have resulted in a lengthy term of imprisonment. The central issue was whether the prosecution could reliably establish that our client was the person responsible for the alleged offending.
The Challenge
The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to identify our client as the second alleged offender. This included his relationship to the female offender, a Snapchat video she had sent him earlier that evening, and similarities between the shoes he was later seen wearing and those visible in the CCTV footage.
However, our client denied the offences, and there was no forensic evidence linking him to the scene or the weapon allegedly used. The complainant was unable to identify him, and there was no digital or cell tower evidence placing him in the vicinity at the relevant time.
Despite these evidentiary limitations, the charges remained before the Court through a number of changes in prosecution carriage. The matter was ultimately listed for a contested hearing, where the prosecution would need to establish the case against our client using admissible evidence.
Our Strategy
Alexandra Murrell focused on the fundamental issue of identification: whether the prosecution had sufficient evidence to prove that our client was the person shown in the CCTV footage.
The defence carefully assessed the evidence relied upon by the prosecution and the gaps in its case. This included the absence of forensic evidence connecting our client to the alleged offending, the complainant’s inability to identify him, and the lack of digital or telecommunications evidence placing him at the scene.
The defence also considered the limitations of the circumstantial evidence, including the significance of the Snapchat video and the similarities between the footwear. These matters did not, on their own, establish that our client was the unidentified person captured on CCTV.
Despite repeated changes in the prosecutors handling the matter, the charges were not withdrawn. We maintained our position that the prosecution needed evidence capable of establishing our client’s identity and continued to prepare for a contested hearing.
Our approach was to hold the prosecution to its obligation to prove the allegations, rather than accept serious charges that our client consistently denied.
The Result
A few days before the scheduled contested hearing, a senior sergeant reviewed the matter and acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to identify our client as the alleged offender.
The prosecution withdrew all charges.
This was a highly favourable outcome given the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment if the charges had been proven.
The withdrawal brought the proceedings to an end without the client having to face a contested hearing or receive a sentence in relation to these charges.
Why Experience Matters in Criminal Defence
Serious criminal allegations can have significant consequences, but the seriousness of a charge does not remove the prosecution’s obligation to prove that the accused person committed the alleged offence.
Identification evidence deserves particular scrutiny where a case relies on CCTV footage, circumstantial links or similarities in clothing, without independent evidence establishing who was present.
Stary Norton Halphen & Galbally has experience assessing the strength of prosecution cases, identifying evidentiary gaps and preparing matters for contested hearings. In this case, Alexandra Murrell maintained the challenge to the identification evidence despite repeated refusals to withdraw the charges.
A refusal by the prosecution to discontinue a matter does not, by itself, establish that the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt. Experienced criminal defence representation can help clients understand the strength of the case against them, assess their options and make informed decisions about how to proceed.
Disclaimer: The case results featured are real matters handled by our firm. However, every case is different and outcomes vary depending on a range of factors, including the specific facts, circumstances and evidence involved. Past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes and should not be relied upon to predict or determine the result of your matter.