- R V P – Successful defence of a man, P, who was charged with an historical rape offence and kidnapping which allegedly occurred 13 years before. DNA evidence linked him with the complainant who alleged he had kidnapped her from a street corner and then raped her. The defence was that all sexual activity was consensual, and that the complainant had made a false allegation. P was found not guilty after the jury deliberated for 2 hours.
- R v K – Successful defence of a man, K, who was charged with the rape of a friend after he was accused of forcing his way into her apartment in the early hours of the morning. The defence centred around the fact that the alcohol consumed by the complainant did not render her incapable of consenting and that she did indeed consent to all sexual activity. The not guilty verdict meant that K, a man without any criminal convictions, did not receive a lengthy term of imprisonment (in the vicinity of 10-11 years).
- R v C – 65 year old man charged with sexual violation and indecent assaults of his adopted daughter 30 years before when she was a teenager. The defence was that the complainant (45 years old at the time of the trial) had made false allegations after C had sold the family home and refused her demands to be paid a large amount of money. Following Lester’s questioning of the complainant and another crown witness the crown prosecutor made the decision to withdraw all charges against C on the basis that the complainant’s credibility issues and motive to lie had been clearly exposed by Lester’s cross-examination.
- R v H – Successful defence of a stepfather accused of raping and indecently assaulting stepdaughter over a 2-year period when she was a teenager. The defence argued that none of the allegations were true and were only made because the stepdaughter resented how much time the accused (her stepfather) was spending with her mother. After a jury could not decide a verdict at the first trial H was acquitted after a successful defence application was made for all 9 charges to be dismissed.
- C v R – A successful appeal to the Court of Appeal against the conviction of C on 12 serious sexual charges. C was originally sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. The basis for the appeal was the previous trial lawyer’s failure to call important evidence that would have raised a reasonable doubt with respect to the complainant’s reliability and credibility. Result: Appeal was allowed, and the convictions quashed.
- R v H – Successful defence of a young man charged with nine serious sexual charges including multiple rapes and kidnapping following night spent with a young woman. Defence was that all sexual activity was consensual. Result: Acquittal on all charges.
- R v L – Successful defence of man accused of kidnapping and raping two young woman in a South Auckland Park on Boxing Day. Both complainants gave evidence and carefully cross-examined. Defence was that all sexual activity was consensual. Result: Not guilty on all 17 charges.
- R v T – Successful defence of 11 serious sexual offences against three separate complainants who were T’s work colleagues. Three separate defences were run including consent, reasonable belief in consent and complete fabrication by one of the complainants. Result: Verdicts of not guilty on all 11 charges.
- R v P – Successful defence of rape allegations by niece while staying with P during the holidays. Defence was that the sexual activity never happened. Verdicts of not guilty on all charges after a second trial (first trial resulted in a hung jury).
- R v T – Successful appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction on serious sexual charges. Originally sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. Basis for appeal was previous lawyer’s failure to cross-examine on several relevant issues.
- R v C – Approached by C’s family to review case. Successful appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction on nine counts of sexual offending of a historical nature against stepdaughter when she was aged between six and 12 years of age. Grounds for appeal were possible jury interference issue and refusal of the trial Judge to grant previous counsel’s application to cross-examine on relevant matters. Result: appeal allowed.
- R v S -Successful defence of a young man accused of raping a young woman after a party. Defence was that all sexual conduct was consensual and the complainant had made false allegations for reasons of her own that were uncovered during cross-examination at trial. Result: Not guilty of all 15 charges.
- R v W – Successful defence of a businessman accused of eight charges of sexually assaulting his ex-partner. The defence was that the sexual assaults did not happen and that the complainant was being dishonest for reasons of her own. Result: Following a three-week trial outside of Auckland, the client was found not guilty of all sexual assault charges thus escaping a lengthy term of imprisonment.
- R v A – 32-year-old man charged with multiple offences of rape and other serious sexual assaults of his 13-year-old step-niece over an 18-month period. Defence was that all sexual activity was consensual despite complainant only being 13 years old. Result: Not guilty on majority of charges thus avoiding a probable 18-20 year sentence of imprisonment.
- R V B – 50-year-old man charged with rape and sexual violations of stepdaughter in New Zealand and Australia over a 3-year period. Defence argued none of the sexual assaults ever happened and that the stepdaughter made false allegations against B because she was resentful of him because he had sided with her mother when she expected him to support her on various issues. Result: Not guilty of all 11 charges (both Australian and New Zealand charges).
- R v M – 73 year old man extradited from Australia just prior to 2020 lockdown to face serious rape charges after allegations by former foster children stemming from late 1980’s. After numerous delays (due to lockdown) M was acquitted after defence made application to have rape charges dismissed