April's Case — Assault (Domestic) — Complainant

Client:  April, Complainant
Accused:  Nate, April's husband
Charges:  Assault (4x)

Background:  April and Nate's young marriage had troubles. From time to time, they argued and got physical. Tonight, though, was too much. Things just got of control. April called the police. Nate and April soon found themselves at the police station. They gave detailed statements alleging assaults upon one another. Nate showed the police the scars on his biceps — a sad but graphic reminder of their past struggles. The police released April without charges. They charged Nate with four counts of assault. Nate was released on condition that he have no contact or association with April, a typical condition in domestic matters.

READ THE POLICE REPORT

Goals:  April is an intelligent and determined woman. She had her own ideas about what should happen, but quickly learned that her agenda wasn't necessarily the same as the one being advanced by the police, the Crown, and the victim-witness office. April sought my advice because she wanted a better understanding of her rights and obligations and how she might influence the process. April didn't want to slip back into the old patterns, but she also didn't want Nate to receive a criminal record, something that would help neither of them. Our goals were as follows: (i) to amend the bail conditions to allow Nate and April to attend counselling together; and (ii) to avoid a criminal record for Nate (perhaps getting the charges withdrawn in exchange for Nate signing a peace bond).

Strategy:  Nate's lawyer and I met twice with a Crown to discuss the case. At the first meeting, we presented a counsellor's report showing that Nate and April had separately attended sessions (they were not allowed to attend together). The counsellor recommended that the bail conditions be varied to allow Nate and April to attend sessions together. The Crown agreed but signalled that this case was not appropriate for a peace bond. At the next Crown meeting, we presented another report demonstrating that Nate and April were effectively dealing with their unhealthy communication and conflict-resolution patterns. Impressed, the Crown agreed to further amend the bail conditions to allow for telephone and e-mail contact, but was opposed to any resolution that didn't involve a guilty plea. The Crown wanted Nate to plea guilty for a conditional discharge (not a conviction but still a criminal record that would be erased in three years). Reaching this impasse, I urged Nate's lawyer to schedule the trial, as the dynamic is often very different on the morning of the trial. Nate's lawyer secured a trial date just four weeks away.

Results:  On the morning of the trial, I appeared in Court with Nate and his lawyer. April stayed home, the police having failed to serve her with a subpoena. When the Crown addressed the case before the Judge, he explained that April had not been subpoenaed and wasn't in attendance. He outlined for the Judge the couple's progress in counselling and concluded that it wasn't in the public's interest to seek an adjournment. He asked that all charges be withdrawn. Nate wasn't asked to sign a peace bond. The case was over in under four months — in like a lion and out like a lamb. April was relieved to enjoy the anti-climax.

READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE WITHDRAWAL