Our client was charged with impeding the breathing or blood circulation of his former intimate partner by applying pressure to neck. Our client had offered the complainant a place to stay when no one else would help her. Our client went so far as to help her get her bogged car out of the bush at the very time she alleged the offence occurred. Our client was adamant that he could represent himself at trial and reveal the complainant was lying about the alleged strangulation. However, on the eve of the trial he realised that to defend oneself it not as easy as it may appear in the movies, and with the prospect of a guilty verdict sending him to prison, he engaged us to represent him. We succeeding in applying to adjourn the trial to enable us time to prepare for the cross examination of the complainant, which was going to be pivotal to a securing a successful outcome. After taking instructions over the course of several weeks, we prepared an effective cross examination strategy.
On the morning of the trial the prosecutor invited our client to plead guilty to a lesser charge of common assault, which if accepted would have resulted in a fine only and our client would likely receive a spent conviction order. Our client maintained his innocence and rejected the plea offer. The trial commenced and during cross examination, the complainant came unstuck on key points which showed her to be a totally unreliable witness. Despite the crocodile tears which flowed throughout her testimony, the magistrate could not ignore the glaring inconsistencies in her evidence. After reserving his decision for a few days, the magistrate found our client not guilty of the charge and awarded our client his costs in full.
