Indecent Act with a Child Under 16 – x2; Sexual Penetration of a Child Under 16 – x3

The client had been charged with taking part in sexual acts with a girl aged 13. He was aged 26 at the time. The client had been friends with the complainant’s mother. The complainants’ mother and father had separated, and she needed emergency accommodation for her and the complainant. Our client offered them accommodation at his home. The acts were alleged to have occurred during the period that they lived together. Our client was charged following the discovery of the complainant’s diary, which contained detailed accounts of sexual encounters between herself and the client.

He faced the following charges:

Our client denied the charges, and the matter proceeded to Trial. Kristina Kothrakis represented our client at the Melbourne County Court.

Nolle Prosequi entered.

At the Trial, the complainant was subjected to cross-examination by defence Counsel. During the cross-examination, she was unable to properly respond to any of the questions that were put to her. She broke down in tears continuously throughout. This meant that the accused was being denied the right to cross-examine the complainant as to the allegations she had made. It became unfair for the Trial to proceed in these circumstances. Without the evidence of the complainant, the Crown had no case against him. Following an Application by the defence, the Crown ultimately entered a nolle prosequi in this matter (which essentially means that the prosecution against him was discontinued).

 


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.

Visit Kristina’s profile to read more about her background and experience.

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