We represented a client HB who was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault and committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence

Following a five-day trial at Canterbury Crown Court, he was unanimously acquitted of all charges.

The Case

HB was a male university student was arrested by police in Canterbury for kidnap, sexual assault and committing an offence with intent to commit sexual offence with intent to commit a sexual offence.

The Allegation

HB, was alleged by the prosecution to have kidnapped the complainant, a female young adult, by holding her hand and forcing her to go back to his student accommodation. Therein, it was alleged that our client had held her there against her will and kissed her without her consent before ultimately letting her leave.

During all this it was also said that he had made other inappropriate comments that had put the complainant in fear.

However, our client denied that he had forced the complainant to go to his flat and averred that she had asked to go back to his accommodation by her own accord.

The Defence Case

The defence case was one of factual denial. Our client maintained that he had encountered the complainant, someone who he had known previously, in the city centre. He was asked by her if she could go back to his flat a request to which our client acquiesced. When they were inside our client's accommodation, the complainant kissed our client without his consent and was reluctant to leave despite being asked.

We therefore submitted that the complainants account was not the truth and that they had entered our client's flat consensually and had been the ones to sexually assault our client.

This required the expert cross-examination of the complainant and examination of our client in order to scrutinize the accounts.

Preparation for this case involved an analysis of the clients interview recording by an independent translator, due to defects in the way the Police had interviewed our client, for who English was not their first language, with an interpreter when he was first arrested.

Legal Submissions

During the course of the trial we made a successful s78 application exclude elements of the prosecution's evidence due to its unreliability prejudicing the fairness of the trail. The prosecution sought to rely on evidence served late and without being examined by an expert witness.

We argued that the effect of the evidence was to ambush the defence during trail without us having enough time to examine the prosecution's evidence and consider how it impacted our clients case.

Ultimately, the Judge ruled in favour and excluded the prosecution's evidence on the grounds that it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings if it were to be allowed to be adduced in trial.

As a result of our submissions the prosecution decided to not continue with one of the counts against our client.

Outcome

Following a 5-day trail before His Honour Judge Simon James at Canterbury Crown Court, the jury unanimously acquitted our client of all charges after 3 hours and 4 minutes of consideration.

Our client was represented by Partner & Supervising Solicitor, Jack Stewart who instructed counsel Paul Hogben from 6 Pump Court Chambers who were both expertly assisted by Paralegal Oskar Smith.