← More Recent Successes success stories

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Forcible Confinement, and Criminal Harassment x 2, withdrawn at Stage 2 of the 276/278 Defence Application, a month before commencement of the trial.  M.W.M. was charged with multiple domestic abuse offences by his former fiancé.  The two had been dating for over a year and became engaged. Unfortunately, the relationship turned toxic, but M.W.M. did not realize that it was toxic. He was very devoted to the complainant.  The complainant ended the relationship essentially because the client was “needy” and was not providing her what she needed.  M.W.M. had bought the complainant a very expensive purse and given it to her.  She then broke up with him.  M.W.M. was upset and continued to contact and attend at her home for the return of the purse and money he paid for her university tuition.  The complainant reported to police allegations of criminal harassment and when he was not immediately arrested went back and gave a statement alleging two sex assaults and forcible confinement.  Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained.  The client provided a large number of messages, bank statements, Visa statements, and other materials to assess for use in the defence.  Joseph Neuberger, assisted by Diana Davison, a men’s rights advocate, assessed the evidence and along with developing the defence narrative.  Joseph Neuberger drafted a detailed 276/278 Application to permit the admission of other related sexual history evidence and numerous documents and messages.  The narrative laid out a clear pattern of coercive control of M.W.M.  He was very much under her control buying her numerous expensive items, paying for her tuition and even after he was charged, the complainant used his Visa.  There were messages and documents that undermined the complainant’s narrative and provided a rich foundation for cross-examination to effectively undermine the complainant.  Moreover, on the criminal harassment charges, the evidence did not meet the criminal standard especially since M.W.M. was simply trying to get the property and funds back as she had promised him in a text.  The motion was successful and prior to the commencement of the trial, the complainant did not want to proceed.  The Crown carefully assessed the case, and the charges were withdrawn with the client signing a common law peace bond.  Thus, charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Criminal Harassment x 2 and Forcible Confinement were withdrawn.