Sexual Assault



R. v. M.S.

Mr. Zoppi’s client had been charged with inappropriate touching of his 15-year-old nephew. Through rigorous cross-examination of the complainant and several long days of questioning, Graham Zoppi was eventually able to expose inconsistencies and other serious issues of credibility in the testimony of the complainant. Because of this, the client was acquitted.

R. v. S.K. (1)

In this case, the accused had met the complainant at a bus platform in the early hours of the morning just after the subway had closed. The complainant was distressed and crying, and Mr. Zoppi’s client consoled her, which eventually progressed to consensual kissing. The complainant alleged that after this the accused engaged in non-consensual intercourse with her. Toronto sexual assault lawyer Graham Zoppi was able to, through extensive cross-examination of the complainant both at the preliminary hearing and at the trial, expose several important inconsistencies between the objective physical evidence and the complainant’s account of events. Because of this work, Mr. Zoppi’s client was acquitted of the charges. The decision in this case can be read here: R v. Khan.

R. v. S.K. (2)

While Mr. Zoppi’s client was on bail for the above case, he was charged with another sexual assault, which Mr. Zoppi was able to secure a second bail for. Graham Zoppi then applied to access the psychiatric records of the complainant. Once the permission to access the records was granted, the records revealed various conditions that raised concerns about the complainant’s ability to accurately and clearly recount events. Further, because of delays from third-party records applications and availability problems for interpreters, Graham Zoppi was ultimately able to have the client’s charges dismissed on grounds of unreasonable delay.

R. v. C.B.

After the client’s teenage daughter accused of him sexually molesting her on two separate occasions, he hired Toronto criminal lawyer Graham Zoppi. Mr. Zoppi was able over the course of rigorous cross-examination of the complainant and several days of questioning to expose various inconsistencies and other credibility issues in the testimony of the complainant. His client was acquitted.