After almost five hours of deliberation, jurors in the Royal Court were unanimous in finding 42-year-old man Lee Albert Phoenix – previously known as Lee de Mouilpied – not guilty on two of the six indecent assault charges he faced.
The Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, who was sitting as the judge, ordered that the jury return a not-guilty verdict on a third charge as there was ‘no evidence at all’ to support it.
The jury of eight men and four women was split on the remaining three counts, but Mr Pheonix was acquitted as too few found him guilty to reach the required majority for a conviction. Under Jersey law, at least ten of 12 jurors must find him guilty to secure a conviction.
Five of the charges related to alleged offences against one man and a sixth against a second man.
Both the alleged victims were between the ages of 14 and 17 at the time of the alleged offending.
The defendant, who displayed little emotion over the three-day trial, gave only the merest smile to his group of supporters as the acquittal was announced.
Over the course of the trial, the court heard allegations from the first complainant that he had woken on a number of occasions to find the defendant touching his private parts. He claimed he had turned away and said he had not told anyone what had happened for many years.
The second complainant told the court of a similar incident when he had slept at the same house the defendant was staying in.
He claimed to have woken to find Mr Phoenix inappropriately touching him without his consent.
Prosecuting, Crown Advocate Julian Gollop had claimed the similarities in the allegations of the complainants – who were not known to one another – would defy common sense if attributed to coincidence.
He told the court both alleged victims were ‘believable and credible witnesses’.
But the defence case was that the complainants fabricated all the allegations against the defendant.
Defence Advocate Mark Boothman suggested they had made up the claims out of revenge for offences Mr Phoenix was previously convicted of committing against another teenage boy who was a friend of the two complainants.
Neither of the alleged victims nor their friend, who Mr Phoenix was jailed for offending against, can be named for legal reasons.
Advocate Boothman also suggested the complainants may have hoped to received compensation.
Mr Phoenix offered no evidence in his own defence during the trial.
Advocate Boothman said he had been ‘emphatic’ that the alleged incidents never happened.
He told the jury his client chose to reveal that he had been convicted for ‘similar’ offences against the alleged victims’ friend and the jury might ‘detest him for having done’ those things.
‘He is not proud of his past,’ Mr Boothman said.
But he asked the jurors to imagine being ‘convicted of similar offences’ and then being accused of something you had not done. ‘How do you explain it?’ he asked.
He urged the jurors to acquit if they had any doubts about the allegations.
