Two men acquitted of raping intoxicated woman picked up while waiting for Uber in Darwin
Consensus Summary
Two men, Panormitis Charalampis and Michael Vrouvis, were acquitted of four counts each of sexual intercourse without consent after a two-week trial in the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The case centered on whether the woman, picked up while intoxicated outside Darwinâs Mayberry nightclub on January 14, 2024, was capable of consenting to sexual activity with the men. Prosecutors argued she was severely intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration between 0.1 and 0.15, unable to walk without assistance, and had fragmented memory of the night, suggesting she was incapable of consent. The defence countered that she initiated sexual encounters and was not too drunk to consent, pointing to her behaviour in the apartment and the menâs actions afterward, such as asking for her phone number and offering breakfast. The jury ultimately found the men not guilty, with the defence celebrating justice being done, while the prosecutionâs case hinged on the womanâs intoxication and memory gaps. The trial revealed conflicting interpretations of the womanâs state of mind and the menâs intentions, with CCTV footage showing her struggling to walk but also walking into the car, complicating the prosecutionâs narrative.
â Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- Panormitis Charalampis and Michael Vrouvis were charged with four counts each of sexual intercourse without consent in the Northern Territory Supreme Court
- The incident occurred on January 14, 2024, outside Mayberry nightclub in Darwinâs CBD at approximately 3:30am
- The woman was picked up by the two men while waiting for an Uber after leaving Mayberry nightclub
- CCTV footage shows the woman crawling and falling out of the car, unable to walk without assistance from the men
- The womanâs blood alcohol concentration was estimated between 0.1 and 0.15 (high to severe intoxication) when she reached her apartment block
- The men remained in the womanâs apartment for eight-and-a-half hours
- The jury deliberated for almost seven hours before acquitting both men on all charges
- The defence argued the woman initiated sexual encounters and was not too intoxicated to consent
- The prosecution alleged the men knew the woman was severely intoxicated and took advantage of her
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 some breaking into tears
- 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
- Defence lawyer Beth Wild argued the womanâs behaviour (e.g., walking onto the balcony naked, sharing a cigarette) was inconsistent with her believing the men were rapists
- The defence highlighted the men asked for the womanâs phone number and offered breakfast, suggesting no belief of non-consent
- The womanâs testimony included describing 'elaborate and extensive sexual interactions' with both men
- The prosecution characterised the womanâs memory as 'patchy and fragmented' and argued her account was unreliable
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- Article 1 (ABC) states the womanâs memory was 'completely wrong' according to Justice Kelly, while Article 2 (ABC) does not mention this specific statement by the judge
- Article 1 (ABC) reports the defence argued the woman 'may have regretted the night and conceived a different narrative,' but Article 3 (ABC) does not explicitly state this exact phrasing
- Article 2 (ABC) states defence lawyer Beth Wild argued the woman 'couldnât distinguish between memory gaps and passing out,' while Article 1 (ABC) does not mention this distinction
- Article 3 (ABC) reports Mr. Charalampis testified the woman 'pulled out my private parts,' but Article 1 (ABC) does not include this specific detail of his testimony
- Article 1 (ABC) states the defence lawyer Beth Wild represented Panormitis Charalampis, while Article 2 (ABC) lists defence lawyers as James Stuchbery and Beth Wild (implying both represented both men)
Source Articles
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...
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....
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....