Case: Vigilante drill-wielding offender chosen by police as victim in bizarre assault case.
Our client attended a business with his father and brother to pick up his ute which had a toolbox fitted. There was a dispute as to the poor quality of the toolbox and our client went to park his ute outside the business premises to negotiate. The business ordered the employees to close the gates so that our client and his family could not leave. A worker armed with a drill entered our client’s ute assaulting him with it and smashing his infotainment system. Our client pushed the drill man out of his vehicle who then threatened our client’s family with the drill. Our client punched the drill man who then got up still waving the drill attempting to assault our client with it. Police charged our client as the offender.
Charges/ Ch1 (Recklessly Cause Injury); Ch2 (Assault)
Result/ Withdrawal of all charges at Contested Hearing
The incident was captured on CCTV which clearly showed the threat to our client and his family. Our lawyer put forward the position that our client acted in self-defence, defence of another, and defence of property. We also argued that by charging the drill man, police are encouraging vigilanteism. Prosecution refused to withdraw our client’s charges on the clear evidence that the drill man and employees of the business were the offenders. Our client elected to take the matter to a Contested Hearing. In the first 5 minutes the magistrate indicated without hearing any evidence that there will be difficulty finding our client guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is because our client, his father and brother would give evidence against the drill man, and self-defence would likely be made out due to proportionality of drill vs fist.