Not Guilty: Indecent Act With a Child Under 16

Indecent Act With ChildThis is a case study on a jury verdict of not guilty for Indecent Act With a Child Under 16.

Our client was charged with indecent act against a child. The matters commenced in the summary stream of the Magistrates’ Court. After extensive consultation with our lawyers, the client elected to have the matter uplifted and dealt with by way of a jury trial in the County Court.

The trial ran for three days (with an extra day completed earlier in the year for pre-recording of evidence) and Hester Kelly acted on the client’s behalf at the La Trobe Valley County Court. The exact charge filed was Indecent Act With a Child Under 16.

After a 4-day trial in the La Trobe Valley, the client was found not guilty. This result was achieved through careful preparation, strategy, and knowledge of the law. Due to the in-house counsel who appeared, we were also able to deal with issues that arose in the trial and to address the court accordingly.

The client and family were ecstatic – a finding of not guilty for Indecent Act With a Child Under 16 is certainly the best outcome for this case. The opposite, a guilty verdict, would have meant a likely term of imprisonment and registration as a Sex Offender which can have long term consequences in terms of ability to travel etc.

 


Hester KellyHester Kelly

Hester is based at our Melbourne office and was admitted to practice in 2014. She previously worked as an Associate to Judge Howard in the County Court of Victoria and was also a solicitor advocate at another Melbourne criminal law firm before becoming a member of Doogue + George.

Hester graduated with First Class Honours in Law in 2012 from Monash University, with a degree in Bachelor of Arts / Bachelor of Laws. She completed two internships at the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and has volunteered with the HIV/Aids Legal Centre in Melbourne.

Visit this page to know more about Hester.
 


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 16/05/2018