← More Recent Successes success stories

Client found factually innocent of Sexual Assault x 2 and Assault x 3 after four-day trial, London Superior Court.  N.B. and his girlfriend started dating before she joined him at university.  Shortly after the start of her first year, the relationship between the two started to deteriorate quickly.  By mid-September, the two had broken up.  A few months later the two inadvertently met up at a bar and spent over two hours together.  N.B., toward the end of their evening, made a disparaging comment about the end of their relationship. The now former girlfriend left in anger.  The next day, the former girlfriend/complainant, made a 911 call and reported that the night before at the bar, N.B. “slapped me across the face”.  Police attended at her residence and failed to take an audio or video statement only to record a non-verbatim typed record of her interview.  The complainant alleged two sexual assaults and three assaults.  N.B. was charged and his activities on campus were significantly curtailed.  His university life changed and was damaged.  Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend the case.  The defence had a private investigator immediately contact the bar and was miraculously able to get all the CCTV footage of the location where N.B. and the complainant interacted for over two hours.  Joseph Neuberger also obtained from N.B. hundreds of messages over Snap, iMessage and other platforms covering the entire time frame of the relationship including and up to when the two met in the bar.  The messages provided a wealth of real time communications that was instrumental in cross-examining the complainant at trial.  As all records in the possession of an accused must be vetted for admissibility through the court. Joseph Neuberger brought a section 276/278.92 Application that was heard in two stages.  The Crown and complainant’s counsel opposed everything including the two and half hour CCTV footage.  Stunningly, complainant’s counsel argued that the CCTV footage was unreliable and would skew the truth-seeking process.  The CCTV footage was a complete record of their interactions with quite good clarity and view NOT showing any slap across the face.  In essence, the complainant’s counsel sought to exclude real time exculpatory evidence to further the complainant’s false narrative.  The defence was successful and all messages were permitted to be used at trial. In addition, Joseph Neuberger with the expert assistance of Diana Davison, and the client, broke down the video footage into 12-minute segments with a chart for ease of reference and use at trial. The entire CCTV video footage was permitted to be used at trial.  The client was prepared according to Neuberger & Partners trial prep process and testified at trial.  The focus at trial was detailed cross-examination of the complainant using the messages, and the CCTV footage to undermine her credibility.  Cross-examination was key and was successful.  The Crown also called a friend of the complainant to provide corroborative evidence for one assault and one sexual assault.  When the witness testified, it became obvious to Joseph Neuberger that the complainant and the friend discussed the trial evidence.  A very pointed and assertive cross of the friend eliminated her evidence but established collusion.  N.B. testified and admitted to various personal failings in the relationship but denied the allegations providing detailed explanations on the entirety of their relationship at university in line with the messages. The presiding judge was excellent.  She rendered a detailed judgement finding the complainant fabricated her allegations and was motived by anger and revenge given the highly insensitive comment made by N.B. the night at the bar.  The judge was critical of the poor police investigation noting the police failed to obtain the CCTV footage from the bar – that the defence had to undertake – and that no video or audio statement was taken by the police of the interview of the complainant.  The judge specifically found the police operated that N.B. was guilty and did the minimum for an investigation.  Further, the judge noted that the complainant had full access to the pre-trial application of the defence thereby knowing about his anticipated evidence at trial and the complainant tailored her evidence to thwart the impact of the evidence. This was unfair.  Further, the judge not only disbelieved everything the complainant testified about, but she also found collusion between the friend and the complainant.  As for N.B., the judge accepted his evidence as truthful and found him factually innocent.  At the close of the judgement, in a rare moment in criminal court, the judge apologized on behalf of the administration of justice for N.B. having had to go through such a traumatic process. It was a moving moment that brought N.B.’s family to tears and even Joseph Neuberger.  It was a special moment restoring belief in the justice system.  Finally, the complainant failed in her evidence to state that she was sexually assaulted – intercourse – in the first sexual assault allegation contrary to her statement to police. The judge found that the complainant had an OBLIGATION to advise the police and Crown prior to the trial that she original version was wrong and correct the evidence.  This was a watershed case and a special moment for the vindication of a young man accused of false allegations of sexual and domestic assault and placed an onus on a complainant to advise in a change of evidence.