No case to answer for rape and sexual assault

Louise defended a vulnerable 16-year-old defendant who was alleged to have raped and sexually assaulted two children aged 10 and 13 on separate occasions. She persuaded the judge that the evidence was so vague and inconsistent on all charges that no reasonable jury properly directed could convict him.

This case was particularly difficult as it required strong knowledge of the Advocate’s Gateway Toolkit to question vulnerable children, as the complainants, the key witness, and the defendant were all vulnerable young children. 

Through skilful cross-examination, Louise laid bare the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts. Moreover, following extensive legal argument, she succeeded in introducing the 13-year old’s bad character evidence, which showed that she had made 3 earlier false sexual complaints in the year running up to alleged incident. In cross-examining the police officer, she also made clear that there were important gaps in the prosecution case regarding basic facts such as the rape location and timing. She further brought complex legal arguments under s.78 PACE, s.27 YJCEA, and s.120 CJA and was successful in excluding part of the prosecution case. 

At the end of the prosecution case, it was clear that the accounts of the complainants were vague and inconsistent and that there were significant gaps in the prosecution case. All the other evidence was circumstantial from which it could hardly be concluded that he had committed the crimes. As a result, Louise won her no case to answer submission on all counts.

Louise was instructed by Alexandra Riddington from ITN solicitors.