Diverted out the door for $475 fine

AN ECHUCA man has escaped with a diversion after he was accused of closing a door on a manager’s wrist then staging a physical assault scene at Echuca’s CVGT Australia office.

Daniel James Answer, 38, appeared in Echuca Magistrates Court on October 24, charged with criminal damage and unlawful assault.

Police prosecutor Acting Sergeant Sally Mannell said the alleged incident occurred when Mr Answer attended the employment agency for an appointment with the manager.

‘‘While there, the accused stood up several times and attempted to close the door to the office. The victim told him to keep the door open each time,’’ Acting Sgt Mannell said.

‘‘At one point when the victim tried to stop him, the accused closed the door onto the victim’s wrist, causing soreness.’’

The court heard the accused then called triple zero, claiming he was being assaulted by the victim.

‘‘Mobile footage shows the accused talking on the phone, pacing and trying to close the door,’’ Acting Sgt Mannell said.

‘‘He then threw himself against the wall, causing damage to the plaster and saying on the phone that he was being assaulted again.’’

Mr Answer claimed he hadn’t assaulted the CVGT manager and that the footage had been taken after he himself was assaulted.

‘‘Being a jobseeker, I had to re-engage regularly with CVGT,’’ he said.

‘‘I had no issue going there but I had already done the requirement the day before. But I was then told the next day that I’d breached the agreement and my pay was being cut and I had to go back in, which is when I was assaulted.’’

Mr Answer alleged he had received threatening phone calls from the centre in the past riverineherald.com.au and had been verbally assaulted by another employee.

Magistrate John Bentley said Mr Answer could avoid conviction if he entered into a diversion which would include paying $475 restitution.

‘‘If we run a contest it’s like the high rollers room at a casino,’’ he said.

‘‘If you win, you get champagne. If you lose, it’s a conviction and that doesn’t look good.’’

Mr Answer was hesitant to accept a diversion, maintaining he hadn’t committed the alleged offences.

‘‘I just ask one condition — that the money I pay for damage be given to a charity instead,’’ he said.

‘‘Because I didn’t do it. Morally, I have a problem paying for reparation.’’

Mr Answer was handed a diversion and ordered to write a letter of apology and pay $475, which will be given to a charity.