The complainant alleged that she was raped by the client, who was a former co-worker. The two had spent the afternoon and night together, drinking and watching TV. The complainant alleged that after retiring to bed, she awoke without pants to find the accused naked above her.
In his record of interview with police the accused admitted having sexual intercourse with the complainant but said that it was consensual and stopped when she became upset.
Our client instructed Josh Taaffe to represent him at the committal. Extensive preparation was undertaken, including the interview of potential witnesses who had worked with the accused and the complainant.
At the committal cross-examination of the other witness present in the house on the night revealed that the complainant was either mistaken or lying about many of the events of the evening. The complainant denied previous sexual contact with the accused and her flirtatious behaviour on the evening. The independent witness had witnessed some of this conduct or been told about it by the complainant.
Ultimately, it emerged that the complainant had engaged in a lot of behaviour whilst drunk that she could not remember. The complainant conceded that the accused stopped any sexual contact as soon as it was requested, was confused about what was happening and asked the complainant why she had to leave.
Following evidence and submissions the Magistrate ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the accused was aware that the complainant was not consenting.
The accused was discharged and the police were ordered to pay the costs of his defence.
As an instructing solicitor Josh has specialised in handling complex matters, such as murder and terrorism trials, including State and Commonwealth Supreme Court trials. Josh is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist.
Visit Josh’s profile to read more about his background and experience. You can also find him on Google+.
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