Assault Charge Against Security Guard Withdrawn | Case Study

Assault Charge Dropped

A security guard was charged with assault after being attacked by a drunk patron. Talon Legal secured an early charge withdrawal and protected our client’s occupational license.

Background

Security guard personnel and crowd controllers working in Adelaide, South Australia’s late-night economy routinely encounter intoxicated patrons, antagonism, and rapid escalations.

Allegations of assault expose a security guard, doorman or bouncer to a criminal conviction under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA).

Even a charge without a finding of guilt may expose them to professional disciplinary proceedings, including the cancellation or suspension of occupational licenses under the Security and Investigation Industry Act 1995 (SA).

In this matter, Talon Legal acted for a licensed guard (the Client) charged with Basic Assault contrary to s 20 CLCA after an incident in the early hours outside “Venue A”. Regrettably, our Client was subject to strict bail conditions which also required his attendance at the Adelaide Magistrates Court until the matter was finalised.

Our objective was threefold:

1. Demonstrate that the Client’s conduct was precipitated by assaults upon him and his colleagues;
2. Establish that his intervention was a reasonable and proportionate exercise of self-defence and defence of others under section 15 of the CLCA; and
3. Show an independent lawful basis under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA) (LLA) for removal using reasonable force where patrons refused directions to leave (s 124, s 131A, s 117A).

We excluded all inaccurate and prejudicial descriptions from the “facts of charge”, including the complainant and their supporting witnesses’ self-serving and unreliable statements.

Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or (08) 7094 2021 now to speak with a senior criminal defence lawyer today.

In negotiations, we persuaded the Prosecution to withdraw the charges and questioned the lack of public-interest in prosecuting a security guard acting lawfully.

What the evidence actually showed

Our reconstruction was built from three fixed-camera CCTV angles (including an external camera from Venue B) and police body-worn video (BWV). The entire critical sequence elapsed within less than two minutes; yet it involved layered and overlapping interactions, which matters significantly for causation, proportionality, and reliability.

The security guard is assaulted first

CCTV shows Patron X (the complainant’s partner) deliver an open-hand palm strike to the Client’s throat. The strike caused immediate shortness of breath and nausea.

Despite being struck without provocation, our Client remained calm and followed de-escalation training techniques. Naturally, he refused Patron X further entry into Venue A after just being assaulted.

For whatever reason, this was ignored during charge adjudication, and our client was painted as the aggressor rather than the initial victim. In reframing the narrative by drawing the prosecution’s attention to time-stamped video stills, we re-established that the Client was the initial victim of an assault.

This provided the foundation to frame all subsequent events thereafter as defensive and in response to increasingly aggressive drunken behaviour.

It resets the starting point for every legal analysis that follows. whether that is self-defence, defence of others, proportional use of force or authorised removal under the LLA. Curiously, the police did not charge the aggressor with a more serious assault against a prescribed occupation.

Importantly, we directly contradicted any implied one-sided narrative that our Client was an “aggressive security guard”.

Targeting and coordination

Immediately after striking the Client, Patron X points towards him and looks to the complainant, who then advances toward the Client.

Through the use of video magnification tools, we were able to capture stills of the complainant advancing with his fists clenched. We recast this as an imminent and approaching threat to suggest purposeful targeting and coordination.

It supports inferences of retaliatory intent and undermines any depiction of the complainant as a passive victim who was “punched out of nowhere.”

Assaults on other security personnel

Within seconds, the complainant shoves the Client’s manager from behind while the manager is trying to separate parties. Another female from the group pushes a female guard. The complainant squares up with clenched fists, grabs the manager’s face, and lines up a wild overhand strike.

Attending officers later remark on BWV that it “sounded like a mutual fight.” This opened the door for a potential complete defence on the basis of consensual mutual combat (which was later abandoned).

We relied on these observations to frame a defence of another and mutual combat. They also tie directly to proportionality: an imminent, escalating threat to a colleague warranted a reasonable intervention with the use of just enough force.

Using force to defend another person

The Client, who had remained on the periphery, sees his manager fall back into a seating area and believes he may be incapacitated. This view was supported upon a reconstruction of angles from our client’s line of sight. To him, it would have appeared that his manager was struck with a powerful overhand first, when instead he tripped after losing balance.

The Client intervenes almost immediately. Crucially, the CCTV does not depict a connected “large punch” by the Client. What the footage shows is a brief separating manoeuvre to drag the complainant off another licensed security guard by hooking a single arm around the midsection.

At this stage, the prosecution case began to unravel. The video did not sustain the prosecution’s core characterisation. It depicts proportionate separation, not gratuitous striking.

Alternative cause of injury

The footage depicts the complainant simultaneously exchanging blows front-on with a different guard. Despite this, the prosecution framed our client’s subsequent intervention as the primary cause of the victim’s facial bruising.

Instead, we suggested that the multi-party melee and overlapping strikes create a live alternative pathway for any bruising, which renders any attempt to sheet home “injury” to the Client speculative.

In doing so, we addressed any “injury” inferences that are irrelevant to basic assault and which invite prejudice contrary to the principle in The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383.

Legal Framework – Tests, Authorities, and their Application

The prosecution bore the onus to prove an intentional application of force without consent and without lawful justification. The “without justification” limb becomes dispositive when self-defence, defence of others, or authorised removal is available on the evidence.

Self-defence and defence of others

Under s 15 CLCA, conduct is excused where the accused genuinely believed it necessary to defend self or another and the conduct was a reasonable response to the perceived circumstances.

The High Court in Zecevic v DPP (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645 frames the controlling question as whether there was a reasonable possibility that the accused believed on reasonable grounds that it was necessary to do what was done.

While a New South Wales decision, R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613 remains a helpful explanatory reference on proportionality assessment in the context of perceived threat.

Application to facts:

• The Client had been assaulted minutes earlier.
• He saw his manager shoved, grabbed, and apparently incapacitated.
• He intervened briefly to separate, did not ground the complainant, and did not deliver a connected punch.
• The conduct was purpose-limited to preventing further harm, not to overpower or punish.
• A quick, single-arm separation was a reasonable and proportionate response to an imminent threat to a colleague.

Authorised person powers (LLA)

As a licensed crowd controller, the Client was an “authorised person” under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA) with:

1. s 131A – authority to direct intoxicated patrons to leave;
2. s 117A – prohibitions relevant to offensive behaviour;
3. s 124 – power to remove using reasonable force persons who refuse to comply.

The group’s refusal to leave after direction engaged these provisions and supplied an independent lawful basis to act, even apart from s 15.

The statutory framework is aligned with public safety and anticipates precisely this scenario in late-night precincts. The Client’s actions fit comfortably within that framework.

Mutual combat and lack of public interest

The attending officers’ BWV comment that it “sounded like a mutual fight” is relevant in two ways:

1. It undermines a one-sided victim narrative; and
2. Bears on the public interest.

Where the complainant is an active participant in a public fight, the proportionality and necessity of separating force by security are strengthened, and the case for criminal prosecution weakens.

Our Open Source Intelligence Investigation (OSINT)

Our Client’s case was strengthened through the use of OSINT techniques which revealed the complainant:

1. Permanently left Australia and would not be likely to attend trial.
2. Was previously involved in other violent drunken altercations.
3. Featured in several overseas news articles after his attempting to fight security guards in similar circumstances.
4. Was anything but a self-declared ‘pacifist’, noting their insistence during the initial police interview of being someone of ‘high moral character’ and a ‘positively contributing member of society’.

At Talon Legal, we relish any opportunity to use unconventional methods if they assist our clients.

Errors in the Facts of Charge

The “bear-hug” that the footage does not show

The “facts of charge” alleged that the Client took hold of the complainant from behind in “a type of bear hug.” That phrase is materially inaccurate and prejudicial.

A “bear hug,” more properly a body-lock, implies a two-arm encirclement around the chest or midsection, pinning the arms and immobilising the torso. The footage depicts none of that. Instead, it depicted a single-arm hook around the midsection used momentarily to pull the complainant away from a guard.

Why this matters:

• “Bear-hug” connotes a dominating, continuous immobilisation and invites a magistrate to infer an aggressive restraint inconsistent with proportionality.
• The precise description “single-arm separating hook from behind” accurately characterises purpose (separation) and duration (momentary), aligning with s 15 proportionality and s 124 LLA use of reasonable force.

“Injury” references are irrelevant to basic assault and invite prejudice

References to the complainant’s “injury” were pressed in the “facts,” yet the charge was basic assault. Under De Simoni, courts must not take into account uncharged circumstances of aggravation. References to injury that are not elements of the offence, unconnected to the Client’s conduct, or not causally supported by the footage are improper and prejudicial.

We sought and obtained the removal of any reference to “injury” rhetoric from the facts, with alternative causation (engagement with a different guard) noted. This prevented sentencing-style aggravation from contaminating the threshold liability analysis.

“Unsteady because of being punched by the Client”

Where the video does not show a connected punch by the Client and the complainant had consumed multiple alcoholic drinks, asserting that unsteadiness was “because of punched by the Client” is mere conjecture.

Multiple causal hypotheses are open (intoxication, collision with another guard, prior shoving, an inner ear infection, etc). Such an assertion invites unfair prejudice and cannot be attributed to the Client.

On the above basis, we invited the prosecution to either to particularise (i.e., spell it out) by reference to time-stamped vision or to withdraw the assertion entirely. Faced with the footage, the assertion was unsustainable.

Hearsay and inflammatory claims

Allegations that security called Patron X offensive names were hearsay as to the Client and irrelevant to whether the Client applied unlawful force. Their only forensic effect was to inflame and cast the Client in a negative light in order to justify an unprovoked attack and retaliation. We pressed for excision as irrelevant and prejudicial. The focus returned to the objective visual record.

Intoxication, Reliability & Weight

Principle and recording

The complainant and Patron X had been drinking (the complainant acknowledged 4–5 drinks). On BWV, police correctly inform the complainant that a statement given whilst intoxicated may be afforded less weight. This is orthodox: intoxication affects perception, memory, and recall.

Contradictory statements

1. The complainant claimed he was “clocked in the eye” immediately upon arriving to check on Patron X.
2. However, the video contradicts that sequence and shows prior aggression by the group, including Patron X’s throat strike on the Client and the shoving of the Client’s manager.
3. Patron X minimised her conduct as “only pushed,” which is inconsistent with the palm-to-throat strike visible on camera.
4. Patron X’s claim that the complainant was “punched out of nowhere” is incompatible with the multi-party melee showing the complainant engaging front-on with a different guard.
5. Assertions that Patron X was “cornered” were contradicted by plainly visible egress paths on camera.

Strategic utility and forensic outcome

1. We used intoxication and OSINT techniques to drive a wedge between verbal statements and the objective factual record. Our position was that any proposition not independently corroborated by video should be treated as unreliable or excluded in the court’s discretion.
2. This repositioned the case onto the only dependable source – CCTV/BWV – where the Client’s conduct appears as a brief separation without a connected strike.

In short: intoxication supplied the scepticism, the footage supplied the truth.

Defence of Others & Proportionality

Our Client’s intervention must be assessed in the circumstances as he perceived them:

1. He had been assaulted minutes earlier;
2. Watched his colleagues being assaulted; and
3. Reasonably believed his manager had been incapacitated and was at risk of a further blow.

He acted swiftly and without more force than was necessary:

1. A brief single-arm separation – to break the complainant’s engagement with another guard;
2. He did not escalate to a two-arm body-lock or sucker punch;
3. Did not take the complainant to ground; and
4. Did not strike a connecting blow.

There was no persistence of force once the immediate danger from a group of aggressive and drunk patrons was abated. 

Even if self-defence or defence of others were doubted, the Client’s directions to leave had engaged the LLA removal powers which we relied on to query whether the prosecution also laid charges against the complainant and Patron X (which were again curiously absent). The patrons’ refusal to leave and their offensive behaviour thus brought  s 124 directly into effect.

Reasonable force in that statutory context looks exactly like what the footage shows: separating, not punishing.

Disclosure, Caution, and “Skeleton Brief”

Where police interactions include references to a “skeleton brief” and there is uncertainty about whether any admissions were taken with an appropriate caution, fair-trial and voluntariness considerations arise.

We flagged that any un-cautioned admissions would enliven the common law voluntariness rule and the court’s discretion to exclude or limit the use of evidence on fairness grounds under the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) and the associated common law discretions.

The point was not academic: it reinforced that the reliable evidentiary centre of gravity here was the video, not intoxication-tainted or procedurally problematic statements.

How the Case Was Presented to Prosecution

Our written submission was organised to force a choice between the objective record and unsustainable narrative elements:

1. Vision first: time-stamped stills and descriptions establishing the true sequence (initial strike on Client; assaults on colleagues; brief separating manoeuvre by Client; simultaneous front-on engagement with a different guard suggesting an alternative defence of mutual consent).
2. Valid legal basis: s 15 CLCA (self-defence and defence of others), Zecevic proportionality, and LLA removal powers as an independent justification. Significant time was saved through the use of our proprietary legal AI.
3. Excluding “facts of charge”: excision of “bear-hug,” removal of “injury” and “unsteady because punched by the Client,” and removal of hearsay-inflammatory content; insistence on strict particularisation or withdrawal.
4. Reliability and weight: elevated the objective footage; framed intoxication as corrosive of uncorroborated memory; pressed the logic that if it is not on the video, it is suspect.
5. Disclosure and fairness: record of interview requests; caution enquiry; the “skeleton brief” reference; foreshadowed applications if necessary.
6. Public interest and proportionality: resources should target genuine alcohol-fueled violence, not a guard who acted with restraint consistent with statute.
7. Offer: discontinuance on a without-costs basis; failing that, set-down for pre-trial conference and trial with counsel briefed.

This structure left the prosecution with little room to maintain the charge without embracing misdescription or conjecture that the footage would expose. The charge was withdrawn in full.

Outcome and Professional Consequences

1. Charge: discontinued in its entirety.
2. Client: no conviction; no penalty; security licence preserved; employment retained.
3. Proceedings: no contested hearing required; stress and cost avoided.

Practice Notes for Security and Hospitality Clients

1. Capture and preserve video immediately. Request all angles and police BWV. Parallel angles defeat narrative drift.
2. Be precise in language. Use neutral, accurate descriptors (for example, “single-arm separating hook from behind” rather than vague “bear-hug”).
3. Record directions to leave. Authorised person powers under the LLA engage upon refusal and provide an independent basis for reasonable force.
4. Separate, do not punish. The optics of separation align with proportionality and read cleanly on camera.
5. Seek early legal advice. Evidence-led submissions can resolve viable defences without trial.

Assault Charge?

Assault charges attract a significant stigma. Once a complaint is made to police, they are duty bound to investigate and will likely charge you with an offence.

Often, there is very little to nothing you can say or do to extricate yourself and avoid an initial charge. However, what you say and do immediately after can have a significant impact on the outcome of your case.

Do not leave your future to chance. These charges are serious and carry lasting consequences. We act quickly, communicate clearly, and fight hard to protect your rights. 

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.