December 23, 2022
Client Acquitted of 15 Offences of Rape & Sexual Assault by Crown Court Jury
Back to News & Blog
Jury Acquits Client Who Believed Complainant was Consenting in Assault by Penetration Trial
Our Client, J, was accused of 'Assault by Penetration'. The Prosecution case was that he sexually assaulted a female after a drug-fuelled night out in Bournemouth. The Defence case was that sexual contact did take place, but it was consensual. After a three-day trial at Bournemouth Crown Court, J was found not guilty of the offence. Read on to find out how Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers defended J...
What Were the Facts of the Case?
Our client, J, found himself arrested by Dorset Police following a night out in October in Bournemouth. He was accused by the prosecution of sexually assaulting a female he met during the evening. The complainant (i.e. the person accusing J of the offence) said that she had not known J prior to meeting him in October. She was visiting Bournemouth with a friend and ended up at a house party. She accepted that she had been drinking alcohol. During the evening, she decided to try for the first time nitrous oxide and ‘Calvin Klein’, a mixture of cocaine and ketamine. She ended up being very ill that night. Her evidence was that she then fell asleep on a sofa and woke up to find somebody digitally penetrating her vagina without her consent. She reported this to the police and J was arrested after being identified by others.
On both sides, an ill-advised alcohol and drug-fuelled night out led to confusion and impaired memory, resulting in someone being prosecuted for a crime they did not commit
It was the Defence case that J went to his friend’s house late in the evening after finishing work. There were lots of people already there having a good time. J joined in and drank alcohol and took drugs given to him by others. At some point in the evening he started talking to a female and, as things progressed, he got the impression she was sexually interested in him. One thing led to another and he penetrated her vagina with his finger. He said that she was awake and consenting the whole time. They fell asleep together and he left around 6am the following morning, whilst she was still asleep.
What is Assault by Penetration?
Assault by penetration is one of the most serious sexual offences. It is found in section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offence can only be dealt with in the Crown Court (it is an indictable only offence) and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A convicted person goes on the Sex Offenders Register.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution has to make a jury sure of the following:
- A person (A) intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another (B). The penetration can be with a body part (in this case, the allegation was with a finger), or something else;
- The penetration is sexual;
- The person being penetrated (B) does not consent to the penetration;
- Person A does not reasonably believe that person B is consenting to the penetration.
In this case, the prosecution and defence both agreed that J intentionally penetrated the complainant’s vagina with his finger, and that the penetration was sexual. The difference between the two sides came down to consent. The prosecution case was that the complainant was asleep at the time and so could not consent; her being asleep meant that J knew she was not consenting. The defence case was that the complainant was awake and a willing participate in the sexual activity. It was reasonable for J to believe that she consented to the penetration, because she did consent.
How Did Hill Twine Defend the Case?
Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers represented J at every stage in the proceedings. He requested us at the police station and one of our representatives attended to help him deal with the interview under caution. What happens at the police station can have a crucial impact on the rest of the case. In our experience, so many people make the error of thinking ‘I don’t need a solicitor, I’m not guilty. I’ll just tell the police what happened’. They then find themselves being prosecuted and regretting not taking advantage of the availability of expert legal advice at the police station. Hill Twine has a legal aid contract which means that we can help anyone at the police station accused of the crime. FOR FREE.
The defence case was that the complainant was awake and a willing participate in the sexual activity
J put himself in the best possible position right from the start by asking to be represented by Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers at the police station. He was eligible for Criminal Legal Aid and continued to represent J in the court proceedings with a legal aid representation order.
Our dedicated Crown Court Team assisted J throughout the proceedings, with our Juliet Osborne having oversight of the case. We instructed Tom Wilkins from Pump Court Chambers as Trial Counsel. As J’s barrister, it was Tom’s responsibility to be J’s voice in court. He cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, put questions to J in the witness box so the jury heard what he had to say, and gave a closing speech to the jury highlighting all of the evidence that supported J’s case and went against the prosecution case. As litigators, it was Hill Twine’s responsibility to make sure that J’s case was properly prepared for trial, giving Counsel everything he needed to be able to defend J. As part of this, we instructed an expert to examine the samples taken from the complainant. The toxicologist’s report set out the impact her drug and alcohol consumption had on her, particularly in relation to impaired brain function. Evidence of this nature was important to the defence case because it explained why she was mistaken in her recollection of what had happened that night.
After a three-day trial, the jury found J not guilty of the offence of assault by penetration. It was a relief to J to know that the ordeal was over and that he could move on with his life.
This case is an example of the peril that an ‘ordinary’ person can find themself in when accused of a crime. In this case, on both sides an ill-advised alcohol and drug-fuelled night out led to confusion and impaired memory, resulting in someone being prosecuted for a crime they did not commit.
If you have any questions or need advice