Network of Child Abusers - MMS Client Not Guilty

Case study summary

Our client was charged with sexually assaulting a child in a case which was described as the largest child sexual abuse investigation conducted by West Midlands police. Our expert representation and preparation throughout the trial resulted in our client being found Not Guilty.

Case study

Our client was a 63-year-old woman. She moved to the Wolverhampton area to flee her abusive partner in the 1990s and became friends with her new neighbour. Their children grew up together and, years later, their grandchildren also became friends.

In 2016, our client was accused of sexually assaulting her neighbour's grandchild. She was charged along with 21 other defendants and due to appear at Wolverhampton Crown Court in relation to one count of sexual assault by penetration of a child under 13. The police say that our client, her neighbour and her neighbour's family members were a part of a network of child abusers. Our client had allegedly visited her neighbour's daughter's house to engage in sexual activity with her neighbour's grandchild.

Our client contacted our firm and asked us to represent her based on our positive reviews which she and her family had seen online. During initial consultations with our client, she admitted that she had grown to become close friends with her neighbour and her neighbour's daughter over the years, however, she was not aware that members of this family were sexually abusing each other and their children. She firmly denied any involvement and expressed how horrified she was by the allegation.

We instructed a barrister with expertise in sexual assault allegations involving children who represented our client at court whilst we critically analysed the evidence and supported our client throughout the case. The evidence against our client was based on her friendship with her neighbour as well as the fact that the complainant had named our client's dog during his Achieving Best Evidence interview. We argued that the fact our client was friends with a family who were involved in such criminal activity did not mean that she was also involved or aware of the criminality. Furthermore, the jury could not be certain that our client was the individual who the complainant was referring to based solely on the name of a dog.

We called witnesses of fact and character including the complainant's mother who gave live evidence to confirm that she did not ask our client to sexually abuse her son and she did not witness our client abusing her son either. We also called our client's own children and grandchildren who described what a devoting mother and grandmother she was.

Our client was the only defendant out of 22 defendants to be found not guilty after a trial by jury. She was extremely relieved that such a long and traumatic process had finally come to a close and she looked forward to enjoying the rest of her life with her family.