This is a case study on Unlawful Assault, Indecent Assault, and acquitted client getting the charges struck out and the police ordered to pay his legal costs.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was working for public transport company. An adult female colleague made an allegation that he indecently assaulted her on the train platform towards the end of the platform which was partially obscured from view. The CCTV footage showed them walking next to each other on the platform, but did not depict the alleged offence as it was outside the range of the footage. He denied this in his record of interview but was suspended from his employment and from working in a voluntary capacity with charities and schools as his working with children’s check was suspended.
He was charged with:
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
We advised our client throughout the Court process and were able to negotiate the removal of certain statements on the brief which would have been problematic to his case.
Written submissions were drafted to the Working with Children’s Check Regulation body about the appropriateness of him retaining his ability to work in the industry pending the outcome of Court which were successful.
Relevant witnesses were interviewed, one of whom the complainant had spoken to one week prior to the allegation about the accused, and to whom the complainant had indicated that she was sexually interested in our client despite being advised that he was married.
That witness was called for the defence which corroborated the accused’s claim that she hit on him and he rebuffed her, which is why she walked off away from him and then seemed upset in the staff room which the prosecution attempted to use as consistent with someone who had just been indecently assaulted.
What was the result?
In this case of Unlawful and Indecent Assault, acquitted client had the charges struck out. It was also ordered that his legal costs be reimbursed by the Police.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was working for public transport company. An adult female colleague made an allegation that he indecently assaulted her on the train platform towards the end of the platform which was partially obscured from view. The CCTV footage showed them walking next to each other on the platform, but did not depict the alleged offence as it was outside the range of the footage. He denied this in his record of interview but was suspended from his employment and from working in a voluntary capacity with charities and schools as his working with children’s check was suspended.
He was charged with:
- Indecent Assault
- Unlawful Assault
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
We advised our client throughout the Court process and were able to negotiate the removal of certain statements on the brief which would have been problematic to his case.
Written submissions were drafted to the Working with Children’s Check Regulation body about the appropriateness of him retaining his ability to work in the industry pending the outcome of Court which were successful.
Relevant witnesses were interviewed, one of whom the complainant had spoken to one week prior to the allegation about the accused, and to whom the complainant had indicated that she was sexually interested in our client despite being advised that he was married.
That witness was called for the defence which corroborated the accused’s claim that she hit on him and he rebuffed her, which is why she walked off away from him and then seemed upset in the staff room which the prosecution attempted to use as consistent with someone who had just been indecently assaulted.
What was the result?
In this case of Unlawful and Indecent Assault, acquitted client had the charges struck out. It was also ordered that his legal costs be reimbursed by the Police.
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
