Our client, a senior business professional of good character, was found not guilty of all charges against him following a trial at Southampton Crown Court.

Our client was accused of offences of controlling and coercive behaviour and an offence of assault by penetration. The allegations came about during the course of the breakdown of their marriage, and the Prosecution heavily relied on non-contemporaneous complaints to the ex-wife’s friends, post arrest, to bolster their case.

The defence case was that the client’s ex-wife suffered from complex health issues and had undertaken extensive treatment, leading to some allegations being misconstrued and exaggerated, and in other instances, fabricated. There had been no contemporaneous police complaint in respect of any of the allegations, and it was the defence case that the criminal process was being used to enhance the concurrent family proceedings.

During the investigation, we raised concerns about the police’s failure to follow all reasonable lines of inquiry during their investigation, and submitted a detailed pre-charge letter concerning the failures, and the required steps. Our client was not even interviewed in respect of the allegation of assault by penetration, nor the substantive allegations that formed the basis of the controlling and coercive behaviour allegation. When our client was charged, we attended the police station with him and provided an 11-page statement upon charge (which the trial judge remarked was “unusual”), and which proved to be a pivotal defence document during the trial.

Our extensive concerns were ignored by both the police and the Prosecution and led to substantial issues at trial (with successful applications to exclude evidence under section 78 of PACE), and an acceptance during cross examination by the Officer in Charge that he had failed to follow all reasonable lines of inquiry.

Following an eight-day trial, during which our client gave evidence in addition to two defence witnesses, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges. The Prosecution made an application for a post acquittal restraining order which was refused on the basis of necessity.

Rachel Cook, Of Counsel and Liam Lane, Associate advised the client on all relevant aspects of the investigation and prosecution process, supporting him in the lead-up to and during trial.

Instructed counsel was Kate Chidgey of 25 Bedford Row and Ella Ripper of 2 Hare Court.