← More Recent Successes success stories

Charge of Sexual Assault with Choking; Acquittal at request of Crown following four-day trial, London. D.P. was accused of a sexual assault with choking involving a woman he had just met a house party. While at the party, the accused allegedly approached the complainant and initiated a conversation with her. After a short conversation of only a few minutes, the accused, according to the complainant, her that he was attracted to her and that he had his car parked outside. They then left the house and went to his parked car a short distance away. Both then entered the back seat of the parked car where they began kissing. The accused allegedly then grabbed the complainant by her neck and repeatedly choked her. After this, the accused was alleged to have laid the complainant on her back, removed her pants and underwear, and fondled her repeatedly. Shorty thereafter, the accused was then accused of having had repeated non-consensual intercourse with her. D.P. retained Michael Bury and Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. The case was a classic “he says, she says” case with no other witnesses for the Crown. There was no dispute that sexual intercourse had taken place. D.P.’s position was that the intercourse, and any other sexual activity, were entirely consensual. D.P. denied any repeated choking. Michael Bury and Tyler Alviano prepared a comprehensive cross-examination which clearly demonstrated significant inconsistencies and gaps in the complainant’s evidence. Additionally, extensive hours were spent with D.P. preparing his examination-in-chief with him and creating the Defence strategy. Following the cross-examination of the complainant by Michael Bury and the testimony of D.P., the Crown invited the Court to acquit D.P. due to the now obvious problems with complainant’s evidence following her cross-examination, in addition to D.P.’s consistent and reliable telling of his version of the events. The trial judge agreed and indicated that the Crown would have been facing an “up-hill” battle to convince him of D.P.’s guilt had the matter proceeded to submissions and then a review of the evidence by the trial judge to reach a verdict.