Jones Hardy Law represented a man in the District Court of New South Wales facing an indictment comprising 11 serious criminal charges, including allegations of sexual touching, assault, intimidation, and carrying out a sexual act.

The allegations were made by the client’s biological daughter, said to have occurred between 2017 and 2021, and arose in the context of a highly contested family law dispute.

The matter was inherently complex and high-risk. The prosecution case relied almost entirely on the evidence of a young complainant, raising critical issues as to reliability, influence, and investigative integrity. The client faced the prospect of significant custodial penalties, along with serious personal consequences, including estrangement from his child and reputational harm.

Jones Hardy Law adopted a forensic and methodical defence strategy, focused on testing the reliability of the Crown case and exposing evidentiary weaknesses.

This included:

Detailed analysis of the complainant’s evidence, identifying inconsistencies and credibility concerns
Establishing the influence of the complainant’s mother, including evidence suggestive of coaching or narrative shaping
Scrutinising the investigative process, including failures to properly address red flags and alternative explanations
Demonstrating that the alleged conduct was consistent with ordinary parenting activities, not criminal conduct
Relying on objective evidence, including video material, showing a normal and affectionate relationship

The defence also made a pre-trial no-bill application, drawing attention to fundamental weaknesses in the prosecution case.

The matter proceeded as a judge-alone trial before Judge Turnbull SC, running for approximately 10 days.

Following the contested hearing, the Court returned verdicts of Not Guilty on all 11 counts, with the client fully acquitted and discharged.

Importantly, Jones Hardy Law then pursued a costs application under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).

The Court granted a certificate for costs, finding that:

If all relevant evidence had been available at the outset, it would not have been reasonable to commence the prosecution
The matter proceeded despite significant and identifiable weaknesses in the Crown case
The complainant’s evidence was substantially lacking in reliability and affected by external influence
The investigation failed to properly evaluate exculpatory material and competing explanations

The Court ultimately concluded that the proceedings were unreasonable and should not have been brought, and that the client was entitled to a costs certificate

Following the contested hearing, the Court returned verdicts of Not Guilty on all 11 counts, with the client fully acquitted and discharged.

Importantly, Jones Hardy Law then pursued a costs application under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).

The Court granted a certificate for costs, finding that:

If all relevant evidence had been available at the outset, it would not have been reasonable to commence the prosecution
The matter proceeded despite significant and identifiable weaknesses in the Crown case
The complainant’s evidence was substantially lacking in reliability and affected by external influence
The investigation failed to properly evaluate exculpatory material and competing explanations

The Court ultimately concluded that the proceedings were unreasonable and should not have been brought, and that the client was entitled to a costs certificate