Two men acquitted of raping intoxicated woman picked up while waiting for Uber in Darwin
Consensus Summary
A jury in the Northern Territory Supreme Court acquitted Panormitis Charalampis and Michael Vrouvis of all charges related to the sexual assault of a woman they picked up while she waited for an Uber outside Mayberry nightclub in Darwin on January 14 2024. The case hinged on consent, with prosecutors arguing the womanâs severe intoxication (BAC between 0.1 and 0.15) and fragmented memoryâincluding CCTV footage showing her unable to walkâproved she was incapable of consent. Defence lawyers countered that the woman initiated sexual activity and that her memory gaps did not definitively prove incapacity, emphasizing her behaviour (e.g., walking naked, sharing cigarettes) was inconsistent with a belief she was being raped. The jury ultimately found no reasonable doubt, with defence lawyer Stephen Robson declaring 'justice was done.' The verdict sparked emotional reactions from the menâs family, while prosecutors had argued the men exploited a vulnerable woman in a predatory manner. The trial highlighted conflicting interpretations of the womanâs testimony, with defence arguments focusing on her possible regret and the ambiguity of her memory, while prosecutors framed the menâs actions as reckless exploitation of her intoxication.
â Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- Panormitis Charalampis and Michael Vrouvis were acquitted on all charges of sexual intercourse without consent by a jury in the Northern Territory Supreme Court after almost seven hours of deliberation.
- The incident occurred on January 14, 2024, when the two men picked up a woman outside Mayberry nightclub in Darwinâs CBD at approximately 3:30am while she waited for an Uber.
- The woman was severely intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) between 0.1 and 0.15 when she arrived at her apartment block with the men, described as 'high to severe' by prosecutors.
- CCTV footage showed the woman crawling and falling out of the car, unable to walk without assistance from the two men.
- The womanâs memory of the night was described as 'fragmented' and 'punctuated by black spots', with her testimony including claims of being 'in and out of consciousness' during sexual encounters.
- Both men pleaded not guilty to four counts each of sexual intercourse without consent.
- The defence argued the woman initiated sexual encounters and that her memory gaps did not prove incapacity to consent.
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- Family members of Charalampis and Vrouvis became audibly emotional as the jury delivered the verdicts, with both men bowing their heads.
- Defence lawyer Stephen Robson SC stated 'justice was done' outside court after the verdict.
- Justice Judith Kelly explicitly stated the womanâs claim of being picked up and carried contradicted CCTV showing her walking across the road and getting into the car.
- The defence argued the womanâs behaviour (e.g., walking onto the balcony naked and sharing a cigarette) was inconsistent with her believing the men were rapists.
- The defence lawyers contended the menâs behaviour (e.g., staying for eight hours, asking for her phone number) was inconsistent with a belief they were at substantial risk of non-consent.
- The prosecutionâs closing arguments included the claim that the men 'knew they had managed to find an attractive, very drunk woman' and took advantage of her.
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- Article 1 states the womanâs memory was 'completely wrong' about being picked up and carried, while Article 3 does not explicitly refute this but focuses on her fragmented memory gaps rather than outright contradiction.
- Article 1 claims the defence argued the woman 'may have regretted the night and conceived a different narrative,' while Article 2âs defence lawyer Beth Wild explicitly states the woman 'couldnât distinguish between memory gaps and passing out,' implying a more nuanced interpretation of her testimony.
- Article 1 mentions the defence lawyer Beth Wild represented Panormitis Charalampis, but Article 3 lists defence lawyers James Stuchbery and Beth Wild as representing Charalampis (no mention of Stuchbery in Article 1).
- Article 1 states the defence argued the woman 'initiated sexual encounters,' while Article 3 includes Charalampisâs testimony that she 'pulled out my private parts,' which could be interpreted as ambiguous (initiation vs. passive response).
- Article 2âs defence lawyer Beth Wild says 'a lack of memory is not enough to establish her incapacity to consent,' but Article 1âs Justice Kelly frames the womanâs memory unreliability as a key factor in the defence case.
Source Articles
Jury clears men accused of raping intoxicated woman waiting for an Uber
Two men accused of raping a young woman they picked up while she waited for an Uber have been acquitted on all charges by a Northern Territory jury....
Man accused of raping woman in her apartment testifies 'she wasn't that drunk'
Panormitis Charalampis, co-accused of picking up an intoxicated young woman from outside a nightclub while she was waiting for an uber and sexually assaulting her at her apartment, took the stand, und...
Trial of two men accused of rape in Darwin hears closing arguments
The jury in the trial of two men accused of picking up a young woman waiting for an Uber after a night out and raping her in her home has heard closing submissions....