Domestic Violence AOABH Charge Dismissed After Contested Hearing

Principal Solicitor Joshua Jung represented a client at Mount Druitt Local Court in August 2026 who was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm in a domestic violence context.

The prosecution alleged that the client grabbed his partner by the neck and that this conduct caused bruising and redness to her neck.

The prosecution case relied principally upon:

• the complainant's account of the alleged assault;
• photographs depicting bruising and redness to the complainant's neck;
• text messages which police sought to characterise as admissions or as supporting the prosecution allegation.

The defence disputed whether that evidence, considered individually or collectively, established beyond reasonable doubt that the client assaulted the complainant in the manner alleged and thereby caused the bodily harm relied upon in the charge.

A central feature of the defence case was the distinction between evidence showing that an injury existed and evidence proving who caused that injury, how it was caused and whether it resulted from the particular assault alleged by the prosecution.

The complainant was cross-examined in detail concerning the mechanics of the alleged assault, her own actions during the incident, the physical positioning of the parties and the sequence of events. Difficulties emerged in the complainant's evidence when the alleged physical interaction was examined in detail.

The defence also addressed the absence of prosecution witnesses who may potentially have provided evidence relevant to aspects of the prosecution case.

Following the contested hearing, the Court was not satisfied that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The client was found not guilty and acquitted.

The prosecution alleged that the client assaulted his partner by grabbing her around the neck.

Police relied upon photographs taken following the alleged incident which depicted visible bruising and redness around the complainant's neck. The prosecution contended that those injuries resulted from the alleged neck-grabbing and constituted the actual bodily harm relied upon in the charge.

The prosecution also relied upon text messages exchanged between the parties. Police sought to characterise aspects of those communications as admissions or as statements supporting the complainant's allegation.

The defence submitted that the photographs, messages and oral evidence required careful examination before the prosecution conclusions could safely be drawn. The ultimate question remained whether every element was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The defence did not dispute that the photographs depicted visible markings to the complainant's neck. Rather, the defence focused upon the distinction between evidence establishing that bruising or redness existed and evidence establishing who caused the markings, when they were caused and by what mechanism.

The photographs were capable of showing the appearance of the complainant's neck at the time they were taken. Standing alone, they did not establish:

• who caused the markings;
• when the markings were caused;
• precisely how they were caused;
• whether they resulted from the alleged neck-grabbing;
• whether the prosecution's account of the assault was reliable.

This distinction was particularly important because the prosecution alleged not merely an assault, but an assault which occasioned actual bodily harm.

The issue was not simply whether bruising existed.

The issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the client caused that bruising by committing the assault alleged.

This distinction between injury evidence and proof of causation formed an important part of the defence analysis.

The prosecution also relied upon text messages exchanged between the client and complainant. Police sought to characterise aspects of those communications as admissions supporting the allegation. The defence challenged that interpretation.

A communication should not automatically be treated as an admission merely because selected words can be isolated and read adversely to an accused person.

The evidentiary meaning of a message can depend upon:

• the complete conversation;
• what preceded and followed the message;
• the relationship and communication style between the parties;
• what proposition the writer was actually acknowledging;
• whether the language was unequivocal;
• whether there were alternative interpretations consistent with innocence.

The defence submitted that the messages had to be considered in their full conversational context. Acknowledging an argument, expressing regret, attempting to placate another person or acknowledging relationship conflict is distinct from admitting the essential elements of a criminal assault.

Cross-examination was central to the defence of the matter. The complainant was questioned in detail about precisely how the alleged grabbing of the neck occurred.

• where each person was positioned;
• how close the parties were to one another;
• how the alleged physical contact commenced;
• how the client's hands were allegedly positioned;
• what the complainant was doing while the alleged grabbing occurred;
• what movement occurred and how long the alleged contact lasted;
• what occurred immediately before and afterwards.

As the mechanics of the alleged assault were explored, difficulties emerged in the complainant's evidence. When questioned about what she herself was doing while she was allegedly being held around the neck, the complainant was unable to recall significant aspects of the interaction.

The purpose of the cross-examination was not to suggest that a person must react to an assault in one particular way. People can respond differently to unexpected, frightening or confrontational events. The questioning was directed to whether the complainant could provide a coherent, internally consistent and reliable account of the specific physical event she alleged had occurred.

The defence examined the relative positioning, movement and physical characteristics of the parties, what each person was said to have been doing and whether the alleged sequence could be satisfactorily explained.

Relative size and physical characteristics were considered as part of the broader factual circumstances of the alleged interaction. The issue was not whether a person of a particular size would necessarily resist an assault, but whether the complainant's description of the particular physical sequence could be satisfactorily explained when the position, movement and conduct of both parties were examined.

Behaviour must be assessed cautiously and in context. Conclusions should not be based on stereotypes or assumptions about how a complainant, accused person or witness would be expected to behave.

The allegation was not challenged merely by asserting that the complainant was dishonest. Instead, the alleged incident was broken down into its component factual parts.

This approach allowed the defence to test the internal coherence and reliability of the prosecution account against the factual mechanics of the alleged incident.

There were persons potentially capable of providing evidence relevant to aspects of the prosecution case who were not called as prosecution witnesses.

An accused person does not bear the burden of proving innocence. Nor does the mere fact that a witness has not been called automatically determine the outcome of a criminal prosecution.

However, the prosecution must ultimately establish its case on the evidence actually placed before the Court. Where potentially corroborative evidence is absent, the Court must determine whether the evidence that has been called is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution case relied substantially upon the complainant's allegation, photographs depicting bruising and redness, and text messages said to support the allegation. The defence submitted that each category required careful analysis.

The central question remained whether the prosecution evidence, considered as a whole, established the client's guilt to the criminal standard.

Domestic violence prosecutions can involve evidence which may appear compelling when considered superficially. A photograph may demonstrate an injury, a text message may initially appear incriminating and a complainant may provide direct evidence identifying an accused person. But the existence of those forms of evidence does not itself establish criminal guilt.

Each item must be analysed according to what it actually proves. Photographic evidence raises questions about timing and causation; messages require their complete conversational context; and witness evidence must be tested for internal consistency, physical coherence and consistency with objective material.

In a criminal prosecution, the burden remains upon the prosecution to establish every element beyond reasonable doubt. A defended hearing requires careful examination of the relationship between allegation → evidence → causation → reliability → proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Core Defence Lawyers has a particular focus on domestic violence defence and ADVO proceedings, including contested hearings in the NSW Local Court.

Principal Solicitor Joshua Jung acts directly for clients and prepares defended matters with a focus on:

• detailed analysis of the prosecution brief and the elements of the alleged offence;
• focused preparation for cross-examination;
• testing witness reliability and identifying significant evidentiary gaps;
• distinguishing evidence of injury from proof of causation;
• analysing text messages and digital communications in their complete context;
• testing the physical mechanics of an allegation;
• maintaining the prosecution burden of proof at the centre of the defence case.

The objective is not simply to assert that an allegation is false. It is to determine whether the prosecution evidence actually establishes every element beyond reasonable doubt.