Rape x2, Indecent Assault x6 – Charges Withdrawn

This case is regarding an allegation of digital penetration by a student on another student at a college. The client and the complainant were spending time together and while lying together the complainant alleged that she was digitally penetrated when not consenting.

The client maintained that he had never done anything wrong and he thought they were at the start of a relationship.

He was charged with:

  • Rape
  • Indecent Assault

Bill Doogue represented our client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

As with so many of these matters the biggest test of truthfulness is consistency. So, the hard work is done in issuing sub poenas for all the notes that the Police and Prosecution do not disclose. This consist of earlier versions of statements and surrounding documents. On receiving those, it was discovered that there was a large discrepancy in the number of times that she had alleged offences had occurred.

The Prosecution withdrew the charges before committal and it was agreed that the client’s costs be paid. It is hard to know whether it was because of the documents we had received or another reason that we were not told about. But it does demonstrate that if your client tells you they are not guilty you should keep pushing as hard as you can.

 


Bill DoogueBill Doogue

Bill has been an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist for over 17 years and a criminal defence lawyer for over 25 years.

Bill specialises in defending corporate crime cases and defending serious sexual offences charges. Bill has expertly and successfully defended high profile, high-pressure cases and is highly respected by the Courts, police and his peers. Bill runs the Melbourne office and enjoys his involvement in advising on the higher level strategy that should be used to defend cases.

Visit Bill's Melbourne criminal lawyer profile to read more about his background and experience. You can also follow him on Twitter.

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