R v Marcus (2013) – Wrongful Sexual Assault Charge Dismissed at Trial

Share This Article

Our client in his late 20’s concluded his night out with friends at a bar in Surry Hills before going home.

He wore jeans and a long sleeved shirt and he was intoxicated before he got into his car to drive home. His car was parked a few minutes away from the bar.

While driving home, he was pulled over for RBT by police when he returned a positive reading for DUI. He was taken back to the local police station where he gave a high range drink driving reading.

The police gave him a court attendance notice for that charge and sent him on his way home after taking away his driver’s licence.

During the same night a young woman also left the same bar at around the same time as our client. CCTV footage from nearby shops showed a man that looked like our client following this woman coinciding minutes after she left the bar after a night out.

The footage only showed a male figure wearing pants and long sleeve shirt but did not show a clear image of any further details of this man.

The woman was attacked and sexually assaulted by this man that night. He grabbed her from behind, subdued her before having forceful non-consensual sexual intercourse with her at a secluded public place in the middle of the night. There were no bystanders or witnesses and no cctv footage captured the incident.

Understandably upset, the woman shortly after attended the local police station and lodged a complaint. It became apparent to police that our client had left the same bar at around the same time that she did which led police to suspect that our client was the perpetrator in circumstances that the police believed that the CCTV footage of the man resembled our client. Our client was arrested and charged for sexual intercourse without consent.

Our Principal Jimmy Singh was instructed to advise and represent our client. We appeared for and applied for bail which the court granted.

When the police evidence (brief of evidence) arrived, our Principal Jimmy carefully reviewed it before identifying and outlining significant weaknesses in the police case, namely:

The DNA following a SAIK on the woman did not match that of our client’s DNA.
The identification parade that the women later took part in identified our client on one occasion but subsequently also identified another male in the line-up on another occasion. This created ambiguity and uncertainty given that the sexual assault occurred at night without adequate light for an opportunity for her to accurately observe the perpetrator’s face.
Our client firmly denied the allegations and maintained his innocence.

As this case approached the trial date after nearly 2 years of court proceedings at the Downing Centre Sydney District Court, our team tried one last attempt at negotiating with the Crown to seek the withdrawal of the charge, emphasising the DNA and identification issues. This was earlier raised but denied by the prosecution.

The prosecution on the first day of trial eventually accepted our “no bill” application for the withdrawal of the charge. The charge was withdrawn and dismissed on the first day of trial.

Our client who had spent considerable time, money and stress dealing with this case for nearly two years was able to finally move on with life.

Our Principal lawyer Jimmy Singh and barrister Paul Johnson worked tirelessly around the clock without giving up on ongoing attempts to negotiate the withdrawal of the charge right to the last minute.

This shows the tireless efforts by our defence team in passionately pursuing the withdrawal of serious charges at every stage of the case with a never give up approach.

Negotiations can take place at any stage of a criminal case, and can even be revisited after previous refusals by police.

Published on 04/09/2025