SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE WINS
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE SUCCESSES
R. V. D.H. (OSHAWA)
- Allegations: D.H. charged with sexual assault.
- Defence Strategy: During preliminary hearing establish inconsistencies in complainant’s version of events that undermined credibility
- Result: All charges dropped at conclusion of preliminary hearing.
R. V. A.P. (TORONTO)
- Allegations: A.P. charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement.
- Defence Strategy: Establish inconsistencies in complainant’s version of events at preliminary hearing that undermined credibility and reliability.
- Result: All charges withdrawn by Crown.
R. V. A.S. (TORONTO)
- Allegations: A.S. charged with sexual assault after meeting complainant at party.
- Defence Strategy: Cross-examine complainant to establish that what she had alleged was not credible. Point to differences between trial testimony and what was alleged in police statement. A.S denied any inappropriate conduct. Defence counsel submits A.S. is telling the truth and the complainant could not be believed.
- Result: Client found not guilty of all charges after trial.
R. V. D.S. (TORONTO)
- Allegations: D.S. charged with sexual assault of customer at place of work.
- Defence Strategy: Secure withdrawal of charges before trial. Provide Crown with information confirming client is professional, family man, of good character. Show complainant had motive to make false allegation.
- Result: All charges withdrawn before trial.
R. V. D.W. (MILTON)
- Allegations: D.W. charged with human trafficking.
- Defence Strategy: At preliminary hearing point to evidence that undermines complainant’s credibility and reliably.
- Result: All charges withdrawn by Crown prior to trial.
R. V. Z.E.: (TORONTO)
- Allegations: Z.E. accused of sexual assault at party.
- Defence Strategy: Jury trial. Cross-examination of complainant at trial exposes inherent unreliability of her accusation. No need for client to testify.
- Result: Client found not guilty by jury of all charges.