Man Found Not Guilty Willesden Magistrates Court Indecent Exposure 2024

Our client was accused of indecent exposure on at least 13 occasions by a neighbour following a neighbour dispute. The dispute concerned the complainant's dog fouling our client's garden and the complainant throwing alcohol canisters in the garden of our client.

Our client had attempted to resolve the complaint amicably, but this had failed, and he was then subjected to months of verbal abuse due to this. False allegations of exposure on multiple occasions against our client had led to 2 charges in court of exposure under the Sexual offence Act.

It was alleged that our client was naked and masturbating in a window, committing sexual acts on multiple occasions.

Following stringent cross-examination of the complaint, we established before the court that the complainant's account was not credible. If convicted, our client faced a custodial sentence. Based on the severe and ongoing nature of the allegations, the case fell within category 1 of the sentencing guidelines.

The starting point was 26 weeks of custody with a range of 12 weeks to 1 year of custody. This would have led to registration under the sex offender registration and notification.

The court appointed us at the last minute on the day of the trial to prevent the defendant from cross-examining the complainant only as his solicitor had not secured legal aid and then failed to attend court. This provision only prohibits the complainant from being cross-examined and does not allow the solicitor to do other work to assist the defendant.

Even though the court-appointed Umar Zeb, Senior Partner, under special provisions to deal with the complainant's cross-examination only, he not only conducted the cross-examination but remained for free at court to take the defendant through his evidence in chief. We assisted the defendant in admitting his video footage outlining the motive behind the allegations: the complainant's dog fouling and being challenged by our client. This video showed the complainant's abuse during this incident.  

Our client was a foreign national with a less-than-perfect command of English and could not explain and prepare his case well. An interpreter would not have taken the case much further. He would most likely have been sent to prison without skilled representation, including our further additional free representation. We will always go the extra mile for our clients.