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 a Darwin nightclub on January 14 2024. The case hinged on consent, with prosecutors arguing the woman was severely intoxicatedâevidenced by CCTV showing her crawling and falling while being carriedâand unable to give meaningful consent. The defence countered that her memory was unreliable due to intoxication and that she may have regretted the night, creating a narrative of non-consent. Both sources agree the womanâs blood alcohol level was between 0.1 and 0.2, and her testimony described being 'in and out of consciousness' during the alleged encounters. The jury deliberated for nearly seven hours before unanimously acquitting the men, with defence lawyers emphasizing inconsistencies in the womanâs account and the menâs actions, such as asking for her number and offering breakfast. While both articles align on core facts, discrepancies include the framing of the womanâs memory reliability and specific details about the defenceâs arguments and representation.
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
- Both men faced four counts each of sexual intercourse without consent in the Northern Territory Supreme Court
- The alleged incident occurred on January 14 2024, when the woman was picked up while waiting for an Uber outside a nightclub in Darwin
- CCTV footage showed the woman crawling and falling out of a car, unable to walk without being carried by two men before being taken to her apartment
- The woman testified she was 'in and out of consciousness' and had 'no control whatsoever' during the alleged sexual encounters
- The woman's blood alcohol level was estimated between 0.1 and 0.2 when she arrived at the apartment with the men
- The defence argued the woman's memory was patchy and fragmented due to severe intoxication, and she may have regretted the night and created a different narrative
- The jury was instructed to determine whether the woman had the capacity to consent and whether the men were aware of a substantial risk she was not consenting
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- Family members of the accused men became audibly emotional as the jury delivered the verdicts, and they embraced outside court
- Defence lawyer Stephen Robson SC stated 'justice was done' after the verdict
- Justice Judith Kelly explicitly stated the woman's claim of being picked up and carried contradicted CCTV showing her walking across the road and getting into the car
- The defence argued the woman's behaviourâincluding walking onto a balcony naked and sharing a cigaretteâwas inconsistent with her claiming the men were rapists
- The defence contended the men's actions (e.g., asking for her phone number, offering breakfast) were inconsistent with them believing there was a substantial risk she was not consenting
- The defence lawyer Beth Wild represented Panormitis Charalampis, while Stephen Robson SC represented Michael Vrouvis
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- Article 1 states the woman's memory was 'completely wrong' and 'unreliable' according to Justice Kelly, while Article 2 does not include this direct quote or framing
- Article 1 mentions the defence argued the woman 'initiated sexual encounters' with both men, but Article 2 does not explicitly state this claim
- Article 1 includes the detail that the men remained in the woman's apartment for 'eight-and-a-half hours,' while Article 2 does not specify the duration beyond the night of January 14
- Article 1 states the defence lawyer Beth Wild represented Panormitis Charalampis, but Article 2 does not mention her name in relation to Charalampis
- Article 1 notes the defence lawyer Stephen Robson SC represented Michael Vrouvis, while Article 2 does not explicitly state Robson SC represented Vrouvis (only mentions Robson SC in closing arguments)
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....
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....