Acquitted: Intentional strangulation & other counts

LJ was acquitted of all counts for trial. In the Family courts, a conviction risked impairing LJ’s prospects of obtaining unsupervised child contact.

Acting on LJ’s instructions, Abigail drafted a defence statement putting into issue that the Complainant enjoyed sexual strangulation and had recorded this on her ‘phone.  The Defence secured several listed hearings for substantive case management at which to raise that the Crown had not obtained and/or had not reviewed and disclosed this.

The Defence also deployed a complete copy of LJ’s own ‘phone download.  This advanced the defence case that the Complainant had misled police in interview about the true nature of her intimate relationship with LJ.  The Defence relied on the content of LJ’s mobile ‘phone to undermine the Prosecution’s case for trial and discredit its principal witnesses.

The Judge refused to grant the Prosecution’s application for a post-acquittal restraining order.  The application rested on alleged instances of coercive and controlling behaviour (which specified ‘he constantly belittled her by doing…’).  The test for making an order is necessity.  The focus is on preventing risk of harassment.  Abigail submitted that the Complainant, in her several accounts of events and witness statements, had not alleged that she was ‘in fear’.  Abigail submitted that to make an order there expressly must be information of fear.  The Court must ascertain the degree of harassment that has occurred and the level of fear and distress it has caused – which are relevant when determining whether to grant or vary a restraining order and, if so, on what terms.

Samayra Ashraf at ITN Solicitors instructed Abigail to defend LJ at trial.