This matter involved a client who transferred to our firm following release from a significant period of remand in custody for serious sexual offences. The allegations were bizarre involving multiple complainants alleging serious sexual offending to have occurred at a house party where there were numerous potential witnesses to the alleged crime. The allegations included a number of alleged offences of sexual penetration of a child.

As the matter progressed we resolved the client’s bail issues which for a substantial period had prevented the client from returning to their home address. On receipt of the disclosure evidence it was apparent the State’s case had a number of problems, including a witness who gave significantly inconsistent evidence to that of the complainants’ account.

We progressed the matter to the District Court where a lengthy pre-recording of all the eye-witness evidence was held. James’ damaging cross-examination revealed a number of inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainants’ account.

At trial James conducted further damaging questioning of a number of adult witnesses, leading to a submission that there was doubt as to whether the complainant’s parents had influenced the complainants’ account.

The jury returned not guilty verdicts in relation to all charges involving the second complainant, and all of the sexual penetration allegations involving the second complainant. The client was convicted of a number of low-end indecent dealing charges.

At sentencing James presented a substantial plea in mitigation emphasising the low-level nature of the offending and the numerous mitigating factors in the client’s favour. The client was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment. This positive outcome meant that the client avoided a substantial term of imprisonment.