Child Pornography Charges – Dismissed

This is a case study of a contested hearing for child pornography resulting in the accused being found not guilty by the court.
Our client was charged with possess and make child pornography in circumstances where it was alleged that he took pictures of his daughter bathing, from outside the bathroom window. The images were located by his now ex partner on our client’s computer. He denied the allegations.
Kristina Kothrakis represented our client at the Melbourne County Court.

A contested hearing was run in the Magistrates’ Court and our client was found guilty. We lodged an appeal against conviction which was heard in the County Court at Melbourne. Our client and his ex partner (mother of the children) were going through a separation. She was wanting to take the children interstate to live. There were very protracted family court hearings where his ex was in part relying upon these allegations to bolster her case for him to not have any contact with the children.

Our case was that she was in fact the one who had taken the photo’s and uploaded them on the computer, and that was done in order to set him up. We gained access to the Family Court file and were able to use the things she had deposed to in those proceedings, in the current proceedings. It became clear to the Judge that the mother had a motive to lie and that she was not a credible witness.
On the basis cited above, the Judge found our client not guilty of all charges and was awarded costs in our favour.

Kristina KothrakisKristina Kothrakis

Kristina has significant experience in criminal trials and also holds a degree in Science, majoring in Psychology, an invaluable area of knowledge, as many of her clients suffer from psychological disorders.

Kristina strives to achieve the best possible result for all her clients. Skilled, decisive and assertive, Kristina demonstrates dedication, care and professionalism at all times.

View Kristina Kothrakis’ profile.

DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 25/02/2013