ACT Criminal Law
National Criminal Law
NSW Criminal Law
QLD Criminal Law
VIC Criminal Law
WA Criminal Law
My legal matter concerning an application for a Domestic Violence Order was managed by Mr Thomas Allen. I am grateful for the outcome he obtained. Without Mr Allen and his ongoing support, I would be certain of a different result. It has been an extremely stressful period. Mr Allen’s astute ability to liaise on my behalf and his expertise was invaluable and for which I am grateful as I am now able to move forward. Thanking you
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Armstrong Legal and specifically Mr Thomas Allen for representing me in my recent case. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Allen for the very professional delivery of his legal service. From the first time that I met Mr Allen, I was very impressed with his demeanour and delivery as he made me feel at ease knowing the severity of my case. Mr Allen not only gave me the possible positive outcomes of the case but also the realisation of the worst-case scenario as far as sentencing goes. … I will certainly be recommending Armstrong Legal to any of my friends or family needing representation in criminal matters. Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
How Are Elements of Criminal Offences Proven? (ACT)
In a recent ACT Magistrates Court decision, a man has been found not guilty of both menacing driving and property damage despite the court finding he committed many elements of both those offences. The decision sheds light on how elements of criminal offences are required to be proven in the course of a contested criminal hearing.
Lauren Stone v Trinity Cook
In the ACT Magistrates Court case of Lauren Stone v Trinity Cook  ACTMC 5, the defendant was charged with menacing driving, property damage and assault. He was found to have followed a woman in his car, crossed to the wrong side of the road and gone over a median strip at some speed to park in front of her, yell at her, punch her headlight and bend her windscreen wiper out of shape. The case involved close analysis of the intention required to constitute menacing driving and demonstrated the comprehensive way in which a prosecution must cover each element of each offence.
The court accepted that the cars driven by the woman and the man had crashed at a stop sign, with the man’s car coming into the rear of the woman’s. The woman had then driven off and the man had followed. While the man was found not guilty of menacing driving and property damage, it should be noted he was found guilty of common assault.
Chief Magistrate Walker found that that the man “followed [the woman] from their first contact at a stop sign on Ainslie Avenue and that at one point he got very close to the rear of her vehicle. Other vehicles came between them in the traffic before [the man] travelled on to the wrong side of the road at the Limestone Avenue and Chisholm Street intersection, where he approached [the woman’s] vehicle at some speed, crossing a cement median strip in order to position himself closely in front of her vehicle. I am satisfied that he got out of the Pulsar yelling amongst other things that she had damaged his car and must not be allowed to leave; that he then approached her vehicle, punched a headlight, grabbed at a windscreen wiper and pulled it into a position that rendered it inoperable, and then punched at her driver-side window at about her head height.”
As there is no definition of “menacing driving” in the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, the prosecution relied on the Macquarie Dictionary, which defines “menace” as “something that threatens to cause evil, harm or injury”, or, as Chief Magistrate Walker put it, “essentially a threat”.
The prosecution submitted the woman was menaced by a threat of personal injury or damage to property because of the defendant’s conduct and behaviour. The defendant’s intention could be inferred from his conduct.
The defence submitted that it was the driving itself which must be menacing, contending that the man’s driving between the initial impact and second event was such that he had had every opportunity to come into physical contact with the woman’s car but “in fact seems to have cleverly avoided it”, which demonstrated a lack of intention to menace.
The Chief Magistrate found both inferences reasonably available on the evidence and so the prosecution had not proved the element of intent beyond reasonable doubt.
It should be noted that the prosecution in this case could have charged the man with an offence under another subsection of the provision relating to menacing driving which carries the same maximum penalty. That subsection provides only that “a person must not drive a motor vehicle on a road or road-related area in a way that menaces someone else if the person ought to have known that the other person might be menaced”. There would seem little doubt that such a prosecution would have succeeded in this case as no actual intent would have had to be proven.
The property damage charge in this case failed for the simple reason that the prosecution failed to place a value on the damage alleged to have been caused. This failure occurred in spite of there having been an argument about whether “damage” was “the loss of ordinary use” of an item, or if it had to be particular damage to a particular item.
Section 166 of the Crimes Act spells out the elements of property damage. To be found guilty of this offence each of these elements must be satisfied.
- A person must destroy or damage property;
- The property must belong to someone else;
- The person must intend to damage it, or be reckless about doing so;
- The damage to the property must not exceed $5000 (previously $1000).
In spelling out why the prosecution failed in this case, Her Honour said, “As to the value of the property damage, I am bound by the decision of Hanel v Shoemark  ACTCA 16, in which their Honours found firstly that the $1,000 value then referred to in s116(3) “relates to the property damaged, not to the damage that has been caused” and secondly that proof of the value of the damaged property is an element of the offence which must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, there is no such proof in the absence of repair having been effected.
“Regardless of the issues of particularisation of the object of the damage and whether or not the harm suffered meets the definition of damage, absent evidence of value, the charge is not made out,” she said.
Common assault was the one offence that the defendant in this case was found guilty of. An assault does not have to involve physical contact from perpetrator to victim, as the Chief Magistrate noted. As was found in R v Bailiff  ACTSC 79:
“An offence of assault is constituted by any act committed intentionally, or possibly recklessly, which causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. If force is actually applied, either unlawfully or without the consent of the recipient, then a battery is committed. In the absence of any such application of force, there must be some threatening act sufficient to raise in the mind of the person threatened a fear or apprehension of immediate violence.”
Looking to the facts of the instant case, Her Honour concluded: “I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that [the man’s] punching of the driver’s side window of [the woman’s] vehicle whilst she was seated inside it was intended to, and did, cause her to apprehend immediate violence.”
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
There are many situations in which legal, political and moral considerations clash. This is occurring in a matter currently before…
“Alibi” is one legal term which many laypeople would feel confident defining. An alibi is of course, “a claim or…
Two different views of the one piece of CCTV footage made all the difference in the 2020 ACT Supreme Court…
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth