Contravene Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO)

If you agree that you have committed the offence and the police are able to prove all the element of the offence, it is best to plead guilty at an early opportunity to receive the maximum discount. Currently the maximum discount available for an early plea of guilty is 25% of the sentence.

Furthermore, the early guilty plea shows the Court that you have remorse and contrition for your actions.

Our Lawyers at National Criminal Lawyers work closely with you to ensure that we obtain all necessary paper work at increasing the chances of obtaining a non-conviction or section 10.

Our Non Conviction lawyers Sydney will help you ensure that your best case is put forward to the Courts in NSW to increase your chances of not receiving a criminal offence.

Contravene ADVO can be punished with a prison sentence of up to 2 years or a fine of up to $5500 or both.

Please note that the penalties mentioned are reserved for the worse case offending and are unlikely to be the penalty you receive.

Contact our Assault Sydney Lawyers now.

If you decide to plead not guilty you will need to prepare to go to a Defended Hearing. A defended hearing is where all the witnesses of that case are called to give evidence. The witnesses are both examined by the prosecution and tested by your defence lawyers.
National Criminal Lawyers have defended thousands of people charged with contravene apprehended violence orders and are experts at these hearings.

Contact the Top Lawyers now and check the difference for yourself.

Sometimes the elements of Contravene ADVO can be established however there also may exist a defence at law.

It is a defence to the charge under section 14(3) of the Act if the contravention of the ADVO occurred in circumstances in which:

• • It was necessary to attend mediation;
  • It complied with the terms of a property recovery order made by a Magistrate; and/or
  • It is also is a defence to the section if you are able to show that you were not served a copy of the AVO, and where the AVO was made in Court that you were not present in Court.
  • For more defences that may be relevant to your case, please visit our dedicated page on defences

In NSW, a court can impose any of the following penalties for a contravene AVO charge.

• • • Prison sentence
    • Home Detention
    • Intensive correction order (previously periodic detention)
    • Suspended sentence
    • Community service order (CSO)
    • Good behaviour bond
    • Fine
    • Section 10

However, from the 24 September 2018 new penalty’s will be replacing the above. They are as follows:

• • • Full time Imprisonment
    • New ICO (ICO) with a home detention condition available
    • New Community Correction Order (CCO)
    • Fine
    • New Conditional release Order (CRO)

For more information about penalties, please visit our dedicated page on penalties.

Our client was charged with numerous domestic violence related offences including choke a person, Contravene AVO and Assault following a serious altercation with his ex-partner in his own house. The ex-partner and our client were still residing together despite both knowing this was not allowed as the client was the subject of non-approach and non-residence order in the AVO with respect to the protected person.

After an argument wherein the client asked his ex-partner to move out his ex-partner in retaliation took the clients best clothes and hid them in a place where he could not find them (later discovered to be up inside the roof cavity).

The prolonged argument then continued wherein during the argument the complainant faked an asthma attack. When the client tried to resuscitate and get her inhaler the protected person then said she would make allegations that she was choked.

However instead of going to the police station or calling police the protected person went to see a friend she and then several days contacted the police and reported to having been choked and Assaulted again after losing consciousness. Technically our client was guilty to Contravene AVO and to the elements of the Assault charge (as he accepted he dragged her to the bathroom after the Asthma attack) but with dispute on the facts.

The client adamantly disputed the facts on the Assault charge and plead not guilty to all the Choke related offences. Our Principal Lawyer, Mr Michael Moussa then devised a unique and specifically tailored plan to represent the client. Invariably Mr Moussa advised the client who confirmed this advice by way of instructions to seek out the truth in a way the Magistrate can see what really occurred.

The plan was then put into action as follows;

Firstly, the client plead guilty to the contravene AVO. This was clearly a case where there was a breach. However, with regard to the Assault allegation Mr Moussa advised that the client should plead guilty to the bare elements of the allegation and then run what is known as a disputed facts hearing.

Secondly, given the client absolutely disputed the Choking charge Mr Moussa advised that this charge go to a Defended Hearing (an outright denial of the allegations).

Both the disputed fact hearing and the defended hearing all can run together.

On the day of the hearing, Mr Moussa was able to show the Court more than what usually would be allowed to be shown. For example, in a disputed facts hearing evidence of the background of a toxic relationship, together with history of provocation and mistaken facts were shown to occur.

Usually in a simple defended hearing these issues would be ruled irrelevant, however Mr Moussa was able to argue they were relevant to the disputed facts part of the hearing.

On the back of these admission and evidence it was exposed that the complainant had a hidden agenda and this allowed the Court to see that the Assault only occurred as there a sudden incident or emergency which could contextualise how it was carried out (Namely the accused grabbing the protected person and dragging her to the bathroom to get her puffer albeit against her will). Lastly during proper cross examination of the Medical expert who examined the complainant four days after the assault it was made clear to the court that no injuries were caused nor any marks around the neck seen (there were however other injuries including a bleeding ear). Given the combined strategy which was designed to find the truth of what happened a massive injustice wherein certain “mistruths” and “relevant facts” were missing from the Police case did not occur. In the end the Court found our client a truthful person and he received a s10(1)(b) sentence both for the Contravene AVO and the Assault.