Common Assault (DV): No Conviction at Parramatta Local Court

The charge arose from an incident between a parent and their child during a family argument. The conduct on which sentence ultimately proceeded was a single slap to the face.

The original police facts described multiple slaps. Addressing that difference was an important part of preparing the matter for sentence. Identifying and non-essential family details have been omitted from this summary.

Joshua Jung advised that the description of the conduct needed to be addressed before sentence. An account of repeated slaps described more extensive conduct than a single slap and was relevant to the assessment of the offence's seriousness.

The prosecution agreed to amend the facts to record one slap. The court then sentenced the client on that amended basis.

This was an agreed amendment to the factual account. The charge remained common assault. The amendment did not remove the seriousness of the conduct; it ensured that the sentencing exercise proceeded on the agreed description of what occurred.

Joshua Jung sought leniency by reference to the client's good character, the circumstances of the incident and ongoing counselling with a focus on parenting.

The defence submitted that the likelihood of the client returning to court for further offending was very low. The client's continuing engagement in counselling was relied on as part of that submission about future conduct and rehabilitation.

These matters were put forward as considerations relevant to sentence. This summary records the defence submissions and the orders made; it does not attribute particular findings or reasons to the magistrate beyond the information available.

Parramatta Local Court imposed a conditional release order for six months without recording a conviction. The court also made a separate apprehended violence order for six months.

The criminal matter concluded with a sentencing order. This was not a finding of not guilty or a withdrawal of the charge.

In NSW, a conditional release order can be made without proceeding to conviction under section 10(1)(b), operating with section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It follows a finding of guilt and imposes obligations for the term of the order.

In this matter, that term was six months. The separate AVO was an additional protective order; it was not removed by the non-conviction sentence. The consequences of either order depend on the applicable law and its terms.

This matter illustrates two aspects of sentencing preparation: establishing the agreed factual basis and presenting the client's relevant personal circumstances.

The amendment from multiple slaps to one slap defined the conduct for which the client was sentenced. The submissions then addressed good character, the surrounding circumstances and ongoing counselling focused on parenting.

The outcome does not establish that a single slap will ordinarily result in no conviction, or that counselling guarantees leniency. Each sentencing decision depends on the offence, the evidence, the person's circumstances and the applicable law.

Joshua Jung is the Founder and Principal Lawyer of Core Defence Lawyers. He represented the client in this matter. His practice focuses on criminal law, including domestic violence proceedings and sentencing matters.

Read Joshua Jung's professional profile.