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 woman was severely intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration between 0.1 and 0.15 and unable to freely agree to sexual activity. CCTV footage showed her struggling to walk and needing assistance, while her testimony described fragmented memory and being 'in and out of consciousness.' The defence countered that the woman initiated sexual encounters and that her memory gaps did not prove incapacity to consent, emphasizing her behaviour and the menâs actions as inconsistent with a belief of non-consent. Both sides presented competing narratives, with the defence arguing the men acted out of a sense of duty to ensure her safety, while prosecutors framed the incident as a deliberate exploitation of her intoxicated state. The trial lasted two weeks before the jury unanimously acquitted the men after seven hours of deliberation.
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
- The woman was allegedly severely intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration between 0.1 and 0.15 when she arrived at her apartment with the men
- CCTV footage showed the woman crawling and falling out of the car, needing assistance to walk, and later lying on the ground
- Both men faced four counts each of sexual intercourse without consent in the Northern Territory Supreme Court
- The womanâs memory of the night was described as fragmented, with black spots and gaps, and she recalled being 'in and out of consciousness'
- The defence argued the woman initiated sexual encounters and that her memory gaps did not prove incapacity to consent
- The prosecution alleged the men knew the woman was 'very drunk' and took advantage of her situation
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- Family members of the accused men became audibly emotional as the jury delivered their 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
- 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 highlighted the men stayed in the apartment for eight-and-a-half hours, asked for her phone number, and offered breakfast as inconsistent with a belief of non-consent
- The womanâs testimony included describing 'elaborate and extensive sexual interactions' with both men
- The defence lawyer Beth Wild represented Panormitis Charalampis, while James Stuchbery and Stephen Robson SC represented both men at different points
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- Article 1 states the womanâs memory was 'completely wrong' about being picked up and carried, while Article 2 does not explicitly refute this but focuses more on the fragmented nature of her memory
- Article 1 mentions the womanâs behaviour (e.g., walking naked onto the balcony) was used by the defence to argue she did not believe she was being raped, but Article 3 does not mention this specific behaviour in the same context
- Article 1 states the defence argued the woman 'may have regretted the night and conceived a different narrative,' while Article 3 does not explicitly mention this exact phrasing
- Article 1 includes the defence lawyer Beth Wildâs argument that the womanâs behaviour was 'inconsistent with her believing at that time that the two men in her apartment were rapists,' but Article 3 does not repeat this exact phrasing
- Article 2 states the defence maintains 'all sexual activity on the night of January 14, 2024, was consensual,' while Article 3 focuses more on Charalampisâs testimony that the woman initiated sex
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....