At Lex Magnus Law, we recognize that every breach allegation has its own facts and legal considerations. Our defence strategy is tailored to the particular charge, the applicable court conditions, and the available evidence.

1. Reviewing the Legality and Clarity of the Conditions

An effective defence begins with examining the court order, undertaking, release document, or probation order at the centre of the allegation.

We consider questions such as:

• Were the conditions legally imposed and applicable to your circumstances?

• Were the terms clearly explained and properly communicated to you?

• Was the wording sufficiently precise to establish what conduct was prohibited or required?

• Did the alleged conduct actually fall within the scope of the condition?

• Were there circumstances that affected your ability to understand or comply with the requirements?

Where the wording, validity, or communication of a condition raises a genuine legal issue, it may be relevant to the defence. The significance of any such issue depends on the specific offence and the applicable law.

2. Assessing a Reasonable or Lawful Excuse

Depending on the provision charged, the Criminal Code may recognize a defence based on a lawful excuse or other legally relevant circumstances.

We investigate the reasons for the alleged non-compliance and identify evidence that may support your position.

Relevant circumstances may include:

• Medical emergencies: An urgent need to obtain medical treatment or attend a hospital.

• Immediate safety concerns: Circumstances requiring you to leave a residence to address an urgent threat to your safety.

• Unexpected disruptions: Events beyond your control that may have affected your ability to meet a reporting or attendance obligation.

• Misunderstanding of conditions: Evidence relevant to whether the terms were properly communicated or understood, where legally relevant.

• Other exceptional circumstances: Facts that may explain the alleged conduct or affect the prosecution’s ability to prove the charge.

The availability of a particular defence depends on the applicable statutory provision and the evidence. We assess the circumstances carefully rather than assuming that an explanation alone will be sufficient.

3. Challenging the Evidence

The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the charged offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Lex Magnus Law examines the evidence to determine whether it establishes the alleged violation.

Depending on the nature of the case, this may involve reviewing:

• Police observations and records: Whether the officers’ observations and documentation reliably establish the alleged breach.

• Communication records: Messages, call logs, social media activity, and other evidence relating to alleged prohibited contact.

• Location evidence: GPS information, surveillance footage, timestamps, and witness accounts relevant to an alleged area restriction violation.

• Curfew and monitoring records: The accuracy and reliability of the evidence used to establish an alleged curfew breach.

• Witness credibility: Whether the accounts provided are consistent, reliable, and supported by other evidence.

• The surrounding circumstances: Whether the available evidence supports the prosecution’s interpretation of the events.

A careful review may reveal inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps, or legal issues that can form part of a defence strategy.

4. Seeking Changes to Unworkable Release Conditions

Sometimes, the practical difficulty is not simply an alleged past breach but the fact that existing conditions are difficult to follow because of changing circumstances.

If your release conditions interfere with employment, education, medical treatment, housing, or other legitimate obligations, it may be appropriate to explore a lawful variation of those conditions.

Depending on your circumstances and the applicable procedure, we can assess options for seeking changes to conditions involving:

• Curfew hours and permitted absences.

• Residence requirements and changes of address.

• Geographic restrictions.

• Contact restrictions, where a variation is legally available.

• Reporting obligations and other release requirements.

Any proposed change must be authorized through the appropriate legal process. Until a condition is formally changed, you should continue to comply with it.

If you are struggling to comply with your current conditions, seek legal advice promptly rather than assuming that you can disregard them.

5. Negotiating a Resolution

Not every breach allegation proceeds to trial. Depending on the strength of the evidence, the circumstances of the incident, and your overall legal position, a negotiated resolution may be appropriate.

Our approach may involve:

• Seeking withdrawal of a charge where the evidence or legal circumstances justify it.

• Exploring a coordinated resolution of multiple related charges where appropriate.

• Making submissions about the circumstances and seriousness of the alleged breach.

• Presenting relevant mitigating factors, including the extent of compliance with previous conditions.

• Advocating for a proportionate sentence and, where legally available, a concurrent rather than consecutive sentence.

The appropriate approach depends on the facts of your case. We evaluate the available options with a focus on protecting your legal interests and pursuing a fair outcome.

No-contact conditions can be particularly challenging when the people involved share children, financial responsibilities, a home, or an ongoing personal relationship.

In some cases, both individuals may wish to communicate or resume contact. However, the other person’s consent does not automatically authorize contact prohibited by an existing court order or release condition.

Depending on the wording of the condition and the circumstances, communication through text messages, telephone calls, social media, or third parties may still raise legal concerns.

If the other person initiates contact, the legal implications will depend on the precise terms of the order and the nature of your response. You should not assume that the condition no longer applies simply because the contact was welcomed or initiated by the other person.