This matter involved a client charged with numerous counts of historical sexual offences. There were four complainants who gave evidence of alleged offences occurring many years prior.

We obtained the disclosure evidence, reviewed it and provided the client with advice. The client had no criminal record and there was no independent evidence to confirm any of the complainant’s accounts. Further, some of the accounts appeared improbable and even incredible. However, despite this, it would not be an easy matter to defend given that multiple complainants had made allegations. Following review of the evidence, a decision was made to progress the matter to a trial in the District Court.

The matter was listed for a two week trial in the District Court. At the hearing of the trial, the State made a decision to drop one of the charges relating to the complainant. This meant that at the trial, only three complainants gave evidence.

James’ damaging cross-examination of the complainants revealed numerous flaws in their evidence. In relation to one complainant, it was apparent that the charge could not actually be proven as no evidence that it was a deliberate act had been adduced by the State. At the close of the prosecution case, we were successful in making a ‘no case to answer’ submission in relation to that count, and it was removed from the jury’s consideration.

A substantial defence case was presented, including adducing detailed and lengthy evidence from the client, and leading good character evidence.

The jury went out to deliberate for many hours, unfortunately they could not reach a verdict. This is a situation known as a ‘hung jury’ and occurs where, firstly a ‘majority direction’ is given which allows a verdict to be entered where 10 out of 12 jurors agree on a verdict. Following that direction being given the jury still could not reach a verdict and they were discharged from further deliberation.

Following the hung jury, the matter was adjourned for a further trial listing hearing to enable the State to make a decision as to whether to proceed with the charges.

Ultimately the State decided it was not in the public interest to have a further trial and the matter was discontinued.

This excellent outcome put an end to years of stress for the client and was a truly exceptional outcome in the face of a very strong prosecution case.