No Conviction for Assault Cause Harm

A contested assault resolved without conviction after raising defensive context and targeted submissions under section 24 of the Sentencing Act.

Background

Our client was charged with a serious assault following a confrontation with the seller of a motorcycle purchased via an online marketplace. The seller had advertised the motorcycle as roadworthy and “in good condition”. After purchase for the client’s adolescent child, it became clear those representations were false.

When a refund was sought, the dispute escalated. Police alleged that the client attended the seller’s home, delivered a strike to the side of the face and caused bruising and abrasions. The act was characterised as intentional and unprovoked, and the charge laid was assault causing harm requiring our attend client to the Christies Beach Magistrates Court.

The client’s consistent position was that he had been misled about the motorcycle, that the complainant was significantly larger, advanced aggressively at the threshold of the residence, and that the client reacted reflexively to prevent an imminent strike.

Assault and “Causing Harm” in South Australia

Under section 20 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA), assault includes the intentional application of force to another without consent.

“Harm” may be physical or mental, and includes pain and unconsciousness. In appropriate circumstances the offence can also be aggravated.

The test for self-defence and how it operated here

Self-defence is codified in section 15 of the CLCA. A person may use conduct he or she genuinely believes is reasonable and necessary for a defensive purpose. Once fairly raised on the evidence, the prosecution must disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. Proportionality is addressed expressly in section 15B.

In this matter, self-defence was fairly raised on the materials and used to inform negotiations and sentencing. The case did not proceed to a contested determination of self-defence. The plea that followed was entered on an agreed factual basis recognising the defensive context.

For further guidance on the statutory elements and practical application, see our overview of Self-Defence in South Australia.

Penalty without conviction

If the Court proposes to impose a fine or community service and is satisfied there is good reason not to record a conviction (having regard to character, antecedents and extenuating circumstances), it may impose a penalty without recording a conviction under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA).

Our Defence Strategy

We combined defensive context, a forensic challenge to mechanism of harm, evidentiary discipline and a structured sentencing pathway directed to a non-conviction outcome.

Defensive context: belief, necessity and proportionality

1. Subjective belief: The client genuinely believed an imminent strike was about to land, having regard to the complainant’s size, stance, advance and tone. Under section 15, the belief is assessed subjectively and then tested against reasonableness.
2. Necessity: The response was immediate and reflexive, directed to stopping the advance and creating space at the threshold.
3. Proportionality: A single open-palm strike was argued to be measured and proportionate when assessed against the threat factors, consistent with section 15B.
4. Onus and litigation risk: We emphasised that, if contested, the prosecution would be required to negate defensive purpose beyond reasonable doubt. That reality informed negotiation and the agreed factual basis.

Complainant conduct and context

1. Aggressive advance: The complainant’s approach, relative size disparity, and the doorway dynamics supported immediacy and heightened risk.
2. Precipitating dishonesty: Evidence of the motorcycle’s unroadworthy condition and false advertisement explained why the client attended and why the complainant had motive to escalate.
3. Injury congruence: Clinical notes and photographs indicated minor bruising and abrasions consistent with a glancing open-hand strike rather than a closed-fist blow.

Elements of assault and charge negotiation

1. Elements of assault: We addressed the actus reus while maintaining that the defensive context remained a live issue on the papers. “Harm” was established at a low level; mechanism and severity remained relevant to proportionality and to sentence.
2. Negotiation posture: We proposed resolution on an agreed basis recognising the defensive context and made detailed submissions in mitigation to address various factors under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA): first-time offender, good character, full cooperation, genuine remorse, and the disproportionate impact a recorded conviction would have on family and livelihood.

Evidentiary discipline

1. Consistency of account: The client’s account remained consistent and was corroborated by size disparity and contextual material.
2. Mechanism of injury: We reconciled the photographs and clinical notes with an open-palm mechanism, which supported proportionality and weighed against gratuitous violence.
3. Narrow agreed facts: We insisted on a circumscribed factual basis for any plea, expressly recognising the defensive context and avoiding pejorative characterisations not borne out by the exhibits.

Sentencing submissions tailored to section 24

1. Good character and antecedents: Verified by references and lack of prior offending.
2. Rehabilitation prospects: Assessed as excellent; very low risk of reoffending.
3. Extenuating circumstances: The consumer-dispute backdrop, the complainant’s conduct, and the reflexive nature of the response.
4. Appropriate penalty structure: Acceptance of a nominal financial impost (court fee) without conviction, which was proportionate to the incident and consistent with protection of the community.

Outcome

• Plea to assault on an agreed, circumscribed factual basis recognising the defensive context (no contested determination of self-defence).
• No conviction recorded under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA).
• Judicial acceptance of the mitigating circumstances, absence of intent to cause harm, and very low risk of reoffending.

The client avoided a criminal conviction and the associated financial, professional and travel repercussions. The only financial impost was a small court fee.

Why this outcome was possible

1. The defensive context was fairly raised and created real litigation risk for the prosecution.
2. Proportionality and mechanism were consistent with a reflexive open-palm action rather than gratuitous violence.
3. Sentencing discretion under section 24 was strongly engaged by character, antecedents, remorse and extenuating circumstances.

Key takeaways for accused persons in South Australia

1. Self-defence test: Did you genuinely believe force was necessary for a defensive purpose, and was your response reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as you perceived them? If self-defence is fairly raised, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt at trial.
2. Defensive context can still matter on a plea: Even where a matter resolves by plea, a properly articulated defensive context can shape the agreed facts and sentence.
3. Non-conviction options exist: A penalty without conviction is available where the Court proposes a fine or community service and there is good reason not to record a conviction.
4. Documentation and proportionality count: Photographs, clinical notes and accurate descriptions of the mechanism of force can be decisive at sentence.

Speak with an experienced criminal lawyer

Contact Talon Legal today to discuss your case for free and without obligation:

1. Call now (08) 7094 2021 or book your free case review online.
2. Understand non-conviction outcomes: Section 24 Sentencing Act guide.
3. Learn more about assault law in SA: Assault & Violence Offences hub.