Our criminal defence lawyers successfully appear for clients charged with sex offences in the Local, District and Supreme Courts. Below are some examples of results that we have obtained for our clients charged with various sex offences.
Aggravated sexual assault (rape) found not guilty
Our lawyer represented a person charged with aggravated sexual assault (rape), with the aggravating factor being the infliction of Actual bodily harm on the victim. The accused was a person of prior good character. A video was obtained that showed the accused and complainant in a consensual embrace (kissing) shortly prior to the time of the allegation (which the complainant had omitted telling the police). The complainant was cross-examined for days, as were her friends. The friends conceded that they had trouble believing the accused had committed the offence, as he had always been a gentleman, intoxicated or otherwise. It was further conceded that the complainant had only recently separated from her boyfriend and knew that mutual friends had seen her with the accused. It was put to the complainant that she fabricated the complaint because she was worried that her boyfriend would find out there had been consensual intercourse, as the Accused put forth. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, acquitting our client, who was free to move on with his life.
Read more about aggravated sexual assault here.Â
Sexual assault defendant found not guilty
Our lawyer represented a man charged with sexual assault. The allegation was that he had sexual intercourse with a woman who had passed out drunk at a New Year’s Eve party. The woman and her friends were cross-examined extensively in the witness box, with the friends giving evidence that the accused and alleged victim were flirting all night. The alleged victim ultimately came across as a racist who was embarrassed because her friends considered her to have been overly promiscuous at the party. The jury found our client not guilty.
Read more about sexual assault here.Â
Assault with intent to have sexual intercourse – Found not guilty
Our client was accused of trying to sexually assault his stepdaughter after threatening her with a screwdriver. The complaint was made to her mother when she was in trouble for running away from home with another teenager. Our criminal lawyer subpoenaed police records that showed, in similar circumstances after running away, she had complained to police that her mother was domestically violent towards her to avoid getting in trouble. Both the complainant and her mother denied the domestic violence when questioned about it at the trial. The complainant went further to say that she didn’t remember saying it to the police. Our criminal lawyer submitted to the jury that if the complainant could lie about her mother to get out of trouble, she might similarly lie about her stepfather. The jury agreed, and our client was acquitted.
Read more about assault with intent to have sexual intercourse here.Â
Sexual touching of a child – Found not guilty
Our lawyer represented a client charged with a historical child sex offence. The complaint was made by the client’s stepdaughter, who was in trouble for running away from home. Our lawyer raised the possibility of her getting in trouble as a motive to lie. Our lawyer subpoenaed the police and found a record of the complainant accusing the mother of domestic violence around the same time as she made an allegation against our client, while in trouble for running away on a different occasion. Both the complainant and the daughter denied that domestic violence had occurred. Our lawyer argued to the jury that if the complainant could lie about her mother to get out of trouble, she could lie about her stepdad to do the same. Subsequently, our client was found not guilty on all counts.
Read more about sexual touching of a child here.Â
Sexual Intercourse with a Child Under 10 – Historical allegations defeated at trial found not guilty
Our lawyer represented a man charged with having sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years old. The allegation was historical from more than 30 years ago. The alleged victim was cross-examined extensively about the time period. It turned out many of her accusations could not possibly have occurred when she was that age because our client had been elsewhere at the time. Our client gave evidence and called evidence of his good character. The jury found our client not guilty.
Read more about sexual Intercourse with a Child Under 10 here.Â
Sexual Intercourse with a Child between 10 and 16 – Honest and reasonable mistake
Our lawyer represented a man at Downing Centre Local Court, charged with having sex with a fourteen-year-old. The client instructed that he had met the fourteen-year-old when she added him on a social networking website. All their mutual friends were over 18. There was nothing on the website that disclosed her age. Following chatting with each other, they met and had sexual intercourse. Throughout their conversations, there was no mention of school or living with her parents. She never disclosed her age to the client. The client raised the defence of honest and reasonable mistake, on the basis that she honestly believed she was over 16. This belief was reasonable in the circumstances of how they had met and their interactions. The Magistrate accepted the defence had been appropriately raised, and our client was found not guilty.
Read more about sexual Intercourse with a Child between 10 and 16 here.
Possession of child pornography – Good behaviour bond
Our client was charged with using a carriage service for child pornography and possessing child pornography. Our lawyer argued that whilst child pornography was on his computer, it had been downloaded inadvertently with a large amount of adult porn. We argued that our client had so much adult pornography that he had negligently failed to delete the child pornography. He had downloaded it by mistake. The Magistrate accepted that whilst our client failed in his duty to remove the child pornography, it could not be proven that he received sexual gratification from it. The magistrate held that, whilst normally these offences required a jail sentence, the peculiar facts in this case meant he could deal with it by a good behaviour bond.Â