← More Recent Successes success stories

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after four-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Ottawa. This was a retrial. N.P. was originally found guilty of sexual assault and found not guilty of assault at this first trial. A successful appeal overturned the conviction and sent the matter back for a retrial on the sexual assault charge. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to act as counsel on the retrial for N.P. After reviewing the extensive trial transcripts and the statements of the complainant, a 276/278 Application was drafted and filed in relation to messages we sought to cross the complainant on and certain other sexual activity. The Application was successful. Joseph Neuberger also brought an application to exclude bad character evidence that the Crown sought to introduce through the complainant and two disclosure witnesses. The defence motion to exclude the bad character evidence was successful. We sought to limit the admissible evidence to a few days before and after the alleged assault and nothing more as it was in our view irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The alleged sexual assault took place during the early months of N.P. and the complainant’s relationship. However, the relationship continued for a year and half and when the two broke up, the allegation was then made to police. Thus, the allegation was a historical sexual assault. But the reason for the breakup of the relationship and other related potential evidence was fraught with eliciting bad character evidence that was prejudicial. Further, the motive to fabricate was formulated at the time of the alleged sexual assault. Thus, any examination or cross-examination of the months following the alleged sex assault was unnecessary and prejudicial. During the retrial, there was extensive cross-examination focused on the complainant’s reliability and professed trauma induced memory loss. There was a complete lack of memory of the two hours before the alleged sexual assault. The two-hour period was significant to the unfolding of events including other sexual activity that led to N.P. and the complainant moving into the bedroom. The evening was about the couple breaking up and the complainant stated that she would never consent if they were breaking up. However, there was a complete lack of memory of the two hours preceding including their discussions, kissing, hugging and other activities. Further, during the time in the bedroom, the complainant in cross-examination again lacked details to the activities and made concessions about how the two were interacting including having a loving and affirming conversation as well as engaging in passionate kissing and touching, details that she failed to disclose in her statement to police and during her in-chief examination. Cross-examination elicited significant details about their sexual interactions and lack of detail on crucial issues about the mechanics of what the complainant described as a violent rape. The complainant at the end of cross-examination was very unreliable and had significant credibility issues. The accused testified and his evidence in and of itself raised a reasonable doubt. As such, N.P. was found not guilty of sex assault.