TRANSPARENCY, PROFESSIONALISM, INTEGRITY AND RESPECT

CASES

Matter Against RSPCA Victoria

In a 2022 matter, Samir defended a matter against the RSPCA Victoria prosecution relating to charges of animal cruelty, and in specific, s 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic). The hearing took place over a period of four days. The team at Banga Legal conducted comprehensive research and analysis to achieve the best possible outcome for our client. Expert witness evidence and vet reports were sought in the matter. The defence relied on the defences under s 11 of the POCTA Act and argued that the accused acted reasonably and reasonably omitted to do an act to defend himself against the threat of attack by the dog.

The had accused believed that there was a reasonable threat that the dog was about to/likely to attack him as the dog was a dangerous dog. Section 34A of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) provides that a dog is dangerous if the dog is kept, or at any time has been kept, as a guard dog for the of guarding non-residential premises; or the dog, at any time, has been trained to attack or bite any person or anything when attached to or worn by a person. In the case of Hollan v Crisafulli [1999] 2 Qd R 249, dogs were classified into three group; general dogs, prescribed dogs, such as greyhounds, whose entire breed are deemed dangerous, and dangerous dogs, who are determined to be dangerous on a case to case basis by the relevant authorities. According to the Court in Hollan, a dog’s classification as ‘dangerous’ or ‘ferocious’ pertains to its nature or temperament. This example supports the idea that dogs are dangerous if they have a tendency to bite, attack, damage, or kill either a human or another animal, regardless of the size, tameness, or even wildness of the victimised animal, and regardless of the dog’s propensity to chase smaller animals more often. In 2019, the RSPCA themselves have also backed a ‘deed-not-breed’ approach to judging dogs and other animals and the RSPCA’s head of operations at the time, Tegan McPherson affirmed that “Breed alone isn’t a reliable predictor of aggressive behaviour. It can be influenced by genetics, learning experiences and training and its environment.”

Queensland Sports and Criminal Law Matter

In a Queensland matter, Samir worked on a matter including a high profile NRL client. The client was charged with s 339, assault occasioning bodily harm, of the Criminal Code Act (Qld). Whilst the entire material act was recorded on CCTV, the proceedings lasted several days. The evidence of many witnesses had to be thoroughly tested to help glean the circumstantial truth of the matter. Furthermore media interests had to be maintained before and after the proceeding to protect the interest of the client and his employing team.

Despite a vigorous approach from the prosecution, the client successfully received a non-conviction result, meaning that their criminal record remains clear, just as it were before the occurrence of the incident.

AHPRA Defence Medical Professionals

Over the COVID-19 period, and as a result of the impacts and remarks left by the pandemic, Samir assisted many medical professionals, particularly chiropractors and other allied health professionals, in vaccinations related matters. This work was multi-faceted with grass roots 1 on 1 service such as managing covid safe plans, dealing directly with AHPRA and in many circumstances keeping practitioners working and successfully resisting closures and prosecutions throughout the pandemic. Matters of this type were handled at all possibly stages with some victories being preventive and others being won on appeal.

For strategy, Samir collaborated with various other legal minds to find the best way forward for clients impacted by the significant changes in the health sector during the pandemic. On a policy level, the team at Banga Legal wrote to various medical boards across the states on behalf of their client’s rights as well as briefing large groups on best practice for navigating this perilous times for allied health businesses.

Through this work the Samir has cultivated a playbook on how to deal with the various government entities engaged in enforcement within this sphere.

Influential Employment Law Matter

In an employment law related matter that Samir was engaged in, despite a client spending thousands of dollars on medical expenses, including seeing specialists and medication, they faced an unfair dismissal at the hands of their employer due to their vaccination status, despite having a valid medical exemption and clear health complications and risks. The first dose of Pfizer caused adverse reaction to our client, result in him suffering from a severe spinal injury and osteoarthritis. Regardless of this our client was considering on taking another dose of the vaccine that had the potential of causing him further complication and even lead to death, simply to comply with the vaccine requirements so he can return to work and no longer deal with the alleged “disciplinary process”. Samir was able to successfully manage the client’s emotions of stress and anxiety due to the situation which was affecting his mental health as well as his relationships.

The team has allowed our client to weather a long, hard and highly litigious legal proceeding whilst seeking to reduce the emotional and financial cost for the client every step of the way.

AREAS OF LAW SAMIR BANGA PRACTICES IN 

Main Areas

• Criminal Law
• Sports Law
• Discrimination
• Medical/AHPRA Defence
• Negotiation
• Conciliation
• Arbitration
• Human Rights

 
Secondary Areas

• Defamation
• Family Law
• Commercial Law