Neuberger & Partners LLP named 2026 Boutique Law Firm of the Year by the Canadian Law Awards. See the award →
× HomeOur Services  About Us  Recent SuccessesTestimonialsNews & Videos  Contactفارسی中文
Contact Our Firm

Regina v. H.T. (2019)

Book a Consultation Now

The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.

Contact Our Firm

 

← More Recent Successes success stories

Client found not guilty after trial on a single count of breaching a section 161 order.  H.T. had plead guilty in 2015 to offences related to sexual interference and sexual assault.  A section 161 order was made for a term of five years.  One prohibition was to not apply for work related to anyone under the age of 16.  H.T. had applied for a job to tutor, but had thought it was just for editing of papers of University Students. The person offering the position, went to police alleging that H.T. had applied for a tutor position that could involve students ages 8 and up.  Joseph Neuberger as retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the case.  Joseph Neuberger sourced out the website of the tutoring company, the job description and retrieved from the client all email exchanges.  Aside from disclosure that was provided, it became apparent that the complainant and her business marketed to university students, and in fact the position was not posted on the website and the complainant could not recall if at any time any mention was made of students other than students in University.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and another employee of the tutoring business and it was established that the complainant was not forthright about what position was offered, and in fact misrepresented what the position was that H.T. had applied for.  There was no mention nor evidence that H.T. applied to tutor anyone other than university level students.  Without going into other detail, cross-examination revealed that the complainant simply took it upon herself to allege something that in fact was not an accurate reflection of the job or H.T.’s application.  H.T. was found not guilty at trial as H.T. had obeyed the strict terms of the 161 order and not breached the order.

 

Contact Our Firm