Case Study

Our client proceeded to a Judge-alone trial on two charges of common assault. Our client’s instructions were clear: the assaults did not happen. The complainant’s allegations stemmed from unresolved grief following the death of a close family member shared by both parties. That loss had fractured their relationship beyond repair, and our position was that the complainant’s account was shaped by that emotional trauma rather than by fact.

Preparation was central to the result. We worked closely with our client ahead of trial to ensure she understood the process, knew what to expect under cross-examination, and could give her evidence clearly and calmly. The complainant’s evidence was tested carefully in cross-examination, and inconsistencies in the account were drawn out before the Judge. The Police case, which rested heavily on the complainant’s credibility, did not hold up under scrutiny.

Our client was found not guilty on both charges.

This outcome reflects what strong pre-trial casework and focused cross-examination can achieve when a client’s account is inconsistent with the narrative from Police. It also reflects the value of taking the time to properly prepare a client to give evidence, not just legally but practically and emotionally, so they are not caught off guard in the witness box.

Cases like this often turn on complex family dynamics rather than straightforward criminal conduct. Grief, unresolved relationships, and long-standing tension between parties can all shape how allegations are made and how they are perceived. Understanding that context, and putting it before the court in a clear and credible way, was key to the result here.