Two teenage sisters living at a residential care facility in Perth made allegations that our client, who was 16 at the time, committed acts of a sexual nature on them, while he was also a resident.
We elected to try the charges before a District Court jury. In the interim before trial and in defiance of legislative framework, the Office of the DPP added more counts to the indictment. The effect of the procedural irregularity and insistence on prosecuting the additional counts, almost derailed the trial. Our client, was forced to accept a short delay to the commencement of the trial for the ODPP to resolve the irregularity rather than the unattractive option of adjourning the trial for up to another 12 months.
During his stay our client met sister A, who stayed at the residence for about a week. It is alleged during this time there was an incident where our client offended against her. Evidence was given by the residential care workers which contradicted sister A’s testimony on material points, making it clear she was mistaken about what had happened.
After the alleged sexual assault, sister A introduced our client to her sister (sister B), a course of action which the defence contended was inconsistent with sister A being violated by our client.
Our client and sister B had a brief intimate relationship. Sister B had a preoccupation with becoming a mother and told our client that she would like to have a baby with him. Sister B had conversations with witnesses who recount her being jovial and proud in describing her sexual interactions with our client. During cross-examination, it became apparent that sister B decided she had been ‘raped’ by our client after watching a popular show for teenagers called “13 Reasons Why”. Sister B did not accept that the allegations were made to spite our client for ending their relationship and having no desire to father her, let alone any, child.
After a four day District Court trial, the jury delivered verdicts of not guilty on all counts.
