District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Allan Cameron [2020] NSWDC 444 Hearing dates: 12/2/20 – 14/2/20; 17/2/20 – 2-/2/20; 24/2/20 – 28/2/20; 2/320 – 4/3/20; 9/3/20 – 11/3/20; 16/3/20 – 17/3/20; 23/3/20 – 27/3/20; 30/3/20 – 3/4/20 Date of orders: 1 May 2020 Decision date: 01 May 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Gartelmann SC DCJ Decision: Guilty of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 Not guilty of Counts 8, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 Catchwords: Judge alone trial – Alleged offences of indecent and sexual assault – Procure for prostitution Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Allan Cameron (Accused) Representation: Counsel: P Marr (Crown Prosecutor) J O'Sullivan (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) O'Brien Winter Partners (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/215084 Publication restriction: Publication of any matter which identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of any complainant in these proceedings is prohibited: s 578A(2) Crimes Act 1900. Judgment Introduction 1. The Crown presented on 12 February 2020 an indictment containing 26 counts for offences against 11 complainants. The accused pleaded not guilty to them all. 2. The trial proceeded without a jury as the accused had elected and the Crown had agreed. 3. The accused was found not guilty on Counts 6 and 22 at the close of the Crown case. This judgment addresses the remaining counts. Directions 1. First, the principles of law applied in it should be stated. 2. The Crown must prove the accused's guilt. The defence need prove nothing. The accused remains presumed innocent unless the Crown proves his guilt. Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough that it is proven more likely than not. But only facts constituting elements of the offences must be proven to this standard. 3. Inferences can be drawn from facts of which there is direct evidence. But care is required, as the standard of proof is high. Inferences should be examined to ensure they are justified and that no others exist. 4. Verdicts may be mixed if the evidence requires it, but not as a compromise. The accused cannot be found guilty on any count unless that offence is proven. 5. Where the Crown relies on a complainant's evidence to prove several counts, a reasonable doubt on one arising from its unreliability must be considered in deciding others. 6. The accused and a complainant only were present when most offences are alleged to have occurred. But it is not a matter of choice between them as the Crown relies on her evidence to prove the offence. The accused cannot be convicted if her evidence leaves a reasonable doubt and he must be acquitted if his leaves one. 7. Any witness's evidence may be accepted or rejected in whole or part with good reason. Their demeanour can be taken into account but care is required as it may not always reliably indicate their credibility. 8. Some complainants gave evidence via CCTV with a support person. Legislation provides for this in cases of this kind. No inference can be drawn from it. Their evidence should be treated the same as other witnesses. 9. Complaint evidence can add to that of a complainant and support the Crown case. Consistency between the complaint and the allegation, and the complainant's demeanour at the time may be taken into account. Complaint evidence can also support a complainant's credibility. Consistency between the complainant's conduct in the circumstances and the allegation may be taken into account. 10. Delay in complaint does not demonstrate unreliability. A sexual offence victim may have good reason for it. 11. Differences in complainants' accounts may be relevant in considering their truthfulness and reliability. But experience shows people sometimes do not remember all details of sexual offences or describe them in the same way each time, and trauma may affect people differently, including as to how they recall events. Differences in accounts of sexual offences are common whether they are truthful or not. It is for me to decide whether such differences are important in assessing the truthfulness and reliability of a complainant's account in all the circumstances. 12. Complainants gave evidence of events not the subject of counts. The Crown relied on this evidence to put their evidence on counts into context, as it explained that those incidents did not occur suddenly without anything to precede them, their conduct at the time, and why some did not complain about it soon afterwards. This evidence can only be used in this way. It cannot be used as showing the accused is the kind of person to commit such offences or is more likely to have done as alleged. It cannot be substituted for evidence on a count. And he cannot be found guilty on any count to punish him for it. 13. The Crown alleges the accused had two pairs of tendencies, each being to have a particular state of mind and to act on it in a particular way. The first is to have a desire to engage in sexual contact with female models and to act on it by taking advantage in photo sessions to engage in sexual conduct with them. The second is to have a desire to exploit models during photo sessions for his own sexual gratification and to act on it by taking advantage of photo sessions to have sexual contact with them during photo sessions. 14. The evidence on all counts may be used to prove he had these tendencies. And these may then be used in proving all other counts. But a complainant's evidence can only be used in this way in proving counts concerning another complainant. 15. The evidence on any count need not prove these tendencies beyond reasonable doubt before it is used in proving another count. But it cannot be used in proving another count except insofar as it proves these tendencies. And the evidence on one count cannot be substituted for that on another. Nor can it be used as showing general bad character. 16. The Crown also relies on evidence on certain pairs of counts together to prove the accused had a particular state of mind and did a particular act. It relies on the evidence of NS on Count 12 and EP on Count 26 together to prove he wanted the complainants to perform fellatio on him and that he instructed them to kneel and wear a face mask, photographed them in that position, approached them, pulled down his pants, exposed his penis and put his penis in their hand. It relies on the evidence of NW on Count 2 and TM on Count 14 together to prove he wanted the complainants to sit on his lap and that he told them to come and see the photos he took, told them not to get dressed, sat at the computer and accessed the photos, pulled them down onto his lap and showed them the photos. It relies on the evidence of SF on Count 1 and EP on Count 22 together to prove he wanted to touch the complainants' nipples and that he removed their bras, approached them and pinched their nipples. 17. The evidence on these counts can be used together in this way but only if it shows the similarities in the complainants' accounts are such that the explanation is unlikely to be coincidence and rather that the accused had the state of mind and did the act alleged with both. If it does not, it cannot be used together and that of each complainant must be considered alone. Even if it does, each complainant's evidence must be reliable before the count concerning her may be proven. 18. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of each offence. Although the defence case was that the accused did not do the acts alleged, the Crown must still prove it was without consent and the accused knew it. 19. Counts 1 to 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18 to 21, 23, 25 and 26 are offences of indecent assault. Their elements are that: the accused assaulted the complainant; without her consent; knowing it was without her consent; and committed an indecent act at the time. An assault is a deliberate and unlawful touch. It need not be hostile or aggressive, or cause fear or pain. Consent is conscious and voluntary permission. It can be indicated through words or conduct. Knowledge of non-consent can be actual or reckless. Recklessness here means considering the possibility of non-consent and proceeding regardless. This concerns the state of mind of the accused and not someone in his position, but it may be inferred from the facts and circumstances. Indecent means contrary to ordinary standards of respectable people in the community. All the circumstances should be taken into account in considering this. A sexual connotation or overtone is required. It may arise from touching another in or with a particular part of the body. The indecent act must occur at the time of the assault but the same act can constitute both. 20. Counts 9 to 11, 13, 14, 17 and 24 are offences of sexual intercourse without consent. Their elements are that: the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant; without her consent; and knowing she did not consent. Sexual intercourse relevantly means cunnilingus or sexual connection occasioned by penetration to any extent of the genitalia of a female person by any part of the body of another. Consent means free and voluntary agreement. Persuasion does not negate it provided it is free and voluntary. It can be indicated through words or conduct, but mere failure to resist does not demonstrate consent. Knowledge of non-consent can be actual or reckless. Recklessness here means considering the possibility of non-consent and proceeding regardless. This concerns the state of mind of the accused not someone in his position but it can be inferred from facts and circumstances. 21. Count 8 is unique. It is an offence of procure for prostitution. Its elements are that: the accused procured a person; not being a prostitute; for purposes of prostitution. To procure means here to persuade, cause or obtain someone to do something. It does not matter if that person consents to it or not. A person is not a prostitute if the person is not engaged in prostitution. Prostitution means the business or practice of engaging in sex for payment. The accused's purpose concerns his state of mind not that of someone in his position. But this may be inferred from facts and circumstances. 22. The Crown alleges the accused lied as he was conscious of his guilt. A statement is only a lie if it is made knowing it is untrue and not because of mistake, confusion or misremembering. Lies can be told for reasons other than guilt. It can only be evidence of guilt if the lie was told to avoid implication in the specific alleged offence. 23. The accused declined to answer police questions once cautioned. He exercised his right to silence in doing so. No inference against him can be drawn because of it. It is no admission of guilt and cannot be used against him in any way. 24. The accused made statements to police during a search. But he need not prove they are true. The Crown must prove his account is not reasonably possibly true. 25. The accused also gave evidence in the trial. It is to be treated the same as that of witnesses in the Crown case. But the defence need not prove it is true. The Crown must prove there is no reasonable possibility it is true. Cases 1. The parties' cases may be summarised as follows. 2. The Crown case was that the accused carried on a business or practice as a photographer at all relevant times. He used a studio he set up in a shed at the rear of his home. The complainants were or were aspiring to be models. Many wanted photos for their portfolios. In an arrangement known as 'time for print', the accused often took photos of complainants without payment. The complainants went to his studio and sometimes other places for photo shoots with him. 3. The Crown alleges the accused suggested complainants remove their clothing and took photos of their breasts and genitals and committed various indecent or sexual acts with or towards them, and in one case, paid the complainant to have sex with him. 4. A complainant reported offences against her to police on 27 June 2017. Police searched the accused's home that day and seized his camera, memory card, computer and hard drive, on which they found images of the complainants taken on the occasion of each alleged offence as well as others. [1] Police identified some complainants from these images while others contacted police following news of the accused's arrest. 5. The defence admitted the accused was a photographer at all relevant times, that he took photos of the complainants on the occasions alleged, and that he had taken the photos that were stored on devices police seized. [2] The defence disputed that the accused committed the alleged indecent or sexual acts with the complainants and in one case that he paid a complainant to have sex with him. The defence case was the accused never had sexual contact with any complainant except once and it was at her instigation. The defence contended complainants would not have continued to have contact with the accused, as many did, if the accused had done the acts alleged. 6. In summary, the essential issue on every count is whether the accused did the act alleged, though it remains necessary also for the Crown to prove all the other elements of each alleged offence. Evidence 1. I turn now to summarise the evidence on each count. 2. Count 1 concerns SF. She had attended a shoot with the accused before it allegedly occurred on 8 June 2011. She gave evidence that she attended his studio for a 'boudoir' style photoshoot. [3] She said it progressed from lingerie to "implied nudes" with a sheet. She said it was his suggestion but she was happy to do it. [4] 3. She said he suggested her nipples should be stiff to be visible through the sheet. She said she understood his 'vision' and so pinched her own nipples. [5] She said he then approached her and pinched both of her nipples with both hands, using his thumbs and pointer fingers at once. [6] She said it only lasted a couple of seconds but caused her pain. [7] She did not expect, ask, or want him to do it. [8] 4. The accused denied pinching her nipples. [9] He said he did not remember the shoot but knew he had not, as she had confided in him about an incident in another shoot, and she would not have done so if he had. [10] He denied any interest in her having erect nipples. He said in his view there was no artistic benefit to her nipples protruding through the sheet. [11] He denied touching her without warning for his own purposes. [12] 5. She attended two more shoots with him in public but secluded locations. [13] She agreed that in response to a Facebook message from him in April 2013, she suggested they catch up and told him she loved working with him. Asked if that were true, she said it was complicated. She said she did like doing shoots and did not have to confidence to shoot with another photographer. She knew he already had sensitive images of her and the arrangement was that she did not have to pay, so she continued the relationship. [14] She said at times she was comfortable and others not. She chose public locations. [15] She said after the Redhead shoot she decided only to go if her partner was present. [16] Asked why she did not stop dealing with him after the June 2011 shoot, she said she was inexperienced and naïve. She said she thought it was the nature of the industry and she had to put up with it. [17] 6. After a shoot at Redhead beach in November 2014, she told her partner how she felt about shooting with him. She said she may have told her partner about the accused touching her breasts in this context, but she did not say he did so that day. [18] Her partner gave evidence that after the Redhead beach shoot she said, "she felt a little scared" as the accused was "a little touchy feely". He said she did not specify when she was talking about and he did not ask. [19] Asked whether his police statement conveyed she told him it happened the day of the Redhead shoot, he said she told him that day but did not specify when it happened, and it was not necessarily that day. [20] He said she later said she wanted to go to police as he had touched her on the breasts and it was not right. [21] 7. Counts 2 to 4 concern NW. She attended two shoots with the accused before Count 2 allegedly occurred on 17 June 2011, and another four before Counts 3 and 4 allegedly occurred on 6 August 2013. 8. She gave evidence that during the 17 June 2011 shoot, nude photos including some of her genitals were taken. She said differing accounts as to whether he pushed or asked her to put her head down. [22] She said she was "a bit embarrassed" at one photo so the accused loaded it onto his computer to show her and assured her he could edit it. She said she would get dressed but he insisted she quickly take a look. She said he turned in his chair and pulled her into his lap with his hands on her hips. She said he told her, "Oh, you've got a pretty vagina. See, look how pretty it is". 9. The accused denied in evidence that he pulled her onto his lap and that he told her she had a pretty vagina. He claimed he did not use the word "vagina". He conceded he may have said, "you've got pretty girly bits" but added he could not imagine why in this context. He said it would have taken 15 to 20 minutes to upload the photographs to his computer and he agreed it may have been possible to upload individual photos but said it was not his "workflow". Asked why he took close up photographs of her genitals, he said: "I probably look at them in a different way than most people would. In that I'll look at the curve of something and the fall of something and all the rest of it. Not, oh my God, oh my God, it's a girly bit. To be honest, it's more a case of, there's going to be more Photoshop involved in making that kind of image perfect than any other image, so it's not an image that I'd be great at. I've seen images that are amazing, but I'll never take one of them. I'm not that good." [23] 1. She gave evidence that she had had a breast augmentation before the next shoot on 6 August 2013. She said he kept asking to film her breasts. She said at one stage she grabbed both "boobs" and played with them. She was not wearing clothes at the time. [24] She said she was sitting but could not remember where or if it was in an inflatable pool. [25] She did not want, expect or agree for him to touch her breasts. [26] She said he did not ask and "just did it." [27] 2. The accused gave evidence that he did not touch her breasts on that day or at all. [28] He denied a suggestion that he took advantage of it being the first time he had seen her alone since the breast augmentation to feel her breasts. He said he did not believe they discussed taking photos of her new breasts. [29] 3. She gave evidence that later in the shoot he touched her vagina. She said she was lying in a small inflatable pool filled with plastic balls with her knees were bent up and legs spread outwards. [30] She said she flinched and moved away. She said she told him to stop and he did. [31] She said she did not expect him to touch her vagina, or want it, or agree to it. [32] 4. She said she could not recall what he did with his camera at this time, as sometimes he wore it around his neck, but she was fairly sure he had put it down, as he was trying to get her to move position. [33] 5. The accused gave evidence that he "definitely" did not touch her genitals. [34] He said he did not use a camera strap. He agreed he owned one but said he hated them "with a passion". [35] Asked why he took photos of her bottom and genitals [36] , he said he had "no idea" but that he: "…had a loose plan to put 100 of those kinds of images or bum photos together in a photo, but that one wouldn't have been suitable in the end unless I 'barbied' it". [37] 1. He agreed he had not discussed his plan with any of his models. 2. She agreed she had contact with him afterwards. She said she did not know what he did in Count 2 was wrong, or understand indecent assault at the time, and he did not charge, unlike other photographers. [38] She asked him about wedding package prices in a Facebook message in April 2014, but ultimately she organised another photographer. [39] She asked him to do and offered to pay for a shoot with her younger sister in a message on 31 July 2016. She said she did not trust other photographers and trusted him, although he had touched her vagina and breasts. [40] 3. She said she told a friend that the accused had done "stuff" that had made me feel uncomfortable and that she would not be returning to him but did not go into detail. She could not remember when she made this complaint. [41] She confirmed she told her friend he pulled her onto his lap when she was naked. [42] She also told her ex-partner about the accused. She could not remember when she made this complaint either, but they were still together at the time. She did not tell him details but just that "things" had happened. [43] She agreed she told both her friend and her then partner that the accused made her sit in his lap while naked, but not that he touched her breasts and vagina. She said being touched on the vagina and breasts was degrading and made her feel disgusting, and she didn't want to think about it. She agreed that being pulled into his lap whilst naked was also degrading, but said it was very different to someone touching her genitals. [44] 4. Her friend gave evidence that NW told her in a Facebook message the accused pulled her onto his lap when she was naked. [45] She said they may have discussed it over the phone or in person too but not much more than in the messages. She said she could not remember if the message or conversation was first but the message was sent the day before she gave her statement on 9 November 2017. [46] Her ex-partner gave evidence that a few weeks before he gave his statement in November 2017 he saw on the news that a Gateshead photographer had been charged. The bulletin did not name the accused and they spoke about who it might be. He said NW told him the accused had pulled her onto his lap and it had made her feel a "bit uneasy". [47] He said they separated in 2015. [48] 5. Counts 5, 7 and 8 concern TC. She attended many shoots with the accused over several years before Counts 5 and 7 allegedly occurred on 16 April 2012, and Count 8 between 23 May 2012 and 21 June 2012. 6. TC gave evidence that when she arrived at his studio on 16 April 2012, he gave her a cuddle and squeezed "both bum cheeks with both hands". She said he told her, "I've missed you; you've still got a nice bum". [49] She said she was not ready for it and did not expect it. [50] 7. The accused ultimately "categorically denied" in evidence that he squeezed her "bum". He agreed he did not have a specific recollection of the event but said it would have been "out of character" for him. [51] He conceded he often hugged her. He agreed that he would have missed her and it was possible he told her so. He agreed that he considered she had a nice bum but denied he would have said so straightaway. [52] 8. She said he was shooting photos of her nude towards the end of this shoot. She said he touched her thigh first then touched the outside of her vagina with his right hand fingers. She said there was no penetration as she pulled away before it went further. [53] She said she got up and got dressed and he walked back to his computer. [54] She said she did not expect it, want it, or ask him to do it. [55] 9. The accused disagreed that he had touched her genitals and said he did not "believe" he had ever done that. [56] He said he thought he would have taken photos of her genitals at times. [57] But he denied any sexual purpose for taking such photos. [58] 10. She said she went to his house on 23 May 2012, as they were going to drive to a nearby location for an outdoor shoot. She said he gave her a cuddle when she arrived. She said he pulled out his wallet with $300 in it and asked if he could touch her again. She said she agreed, as she needed money at the time. [59] 11. She said she asked for a blindfold and he gave her one and she put it on. She said she got undressed and lay on the studio floor. She said she heard him approach then felt him push her legs apart with both hands on the inside. She said he inserted his fingers into her vagina then pulled out. She said he then performed oral sex on her for about 20 seconds before she pulled away and got up saying, "That's enough". [60] She said it was the first time anyone had given her money for sex. [61] 12. She gave police her diaries from 2010 to 2017. [62] She recorded "$300 from Allan" in her 2012 diary in connection with this shoot. [63] She denied a suggestion he only ever gave her money to fix her car. She said her car accidents were in July 2011 and December 2012, when there were no records in her diaries of payments from him. [64] 13. She said he offered her $400 to $450 dollars at the end of their next shoot on 20 June 2012. She said she agreed as he had not hurt her, no-one had found out, and she needed money at the time. [65] She agreed her diary did not record this payment but denied this was because he did not give it to her. She said she could have written the entry about the shoot before she went to it, as she sometimes did. [66] 14. She said she asked for a blindfold again. She said he digitally penetrated her and performed oral sex on her. She said he then grabbed both her legs and pulled her towards him, and she felt his penis inside. She said she pulled away but he put her hand on his penis and asked her to "finish him off". She said he moved her hand a couple of times on his penis until he ejaculated on the floor. She denied a suggestion apparent blood on her leg in a photo was menstrual as she was not menstruating at the time. [67] 15. The accused gave evidence that he never gave her money to touch her in a sexual way. He said they did share a bed with her four times at "shootouts". [68] He said he gave her $400 once to help her repair her car after an accident but he could not remember when. He later said he had since worked out this was earlier than he had thought. He said he knew she had financial difficulties but tried to help with job links. [69] He said he was broke when she said he gave her money. [70] He agreed he referred in their messages to spending thousands of dollars to repair his car and paying for a rental for a shootout. He said "every cent" he could find went to the car and the model shootout did not happen as he could not afford it. [71] He agreed he told her he trusted her two days before the shoot and trusted that what they spoke about would stay between them. [72] He agreed he liked her but denied he had "feelings" for her. [73] 16. She continued to have contact with him after the alleged offences. She exchanged Facebook messages with him and arranged further shoots. She arranged another shoot with him the day after Count 7. [74] She invited him to attend her 21st birthday celebration. She acknowledged that she treated him like a friend and felt comfortable shooting with him. [75] 17. Counts 9 to 12 concern NS. It was her first shoot with the accused when they allegedly occurred on 15 May 2013. 18. She gave evidence that when they arrived at the studio he locked the door and told her "now strip". She said she responded "oh okay" with a "puzzled face". She said he said "we'll start with no clothes on, and work our way up to being clothed, so you're ready to walk out". She said she got undressed and he gave her a black satin sheet to cover herself. [76] She said he took photos of her with the sheet before he asked her to lower it to expose her breasts, and then to drop it. [77] 19. She said he asked her to pose on all fours. [78] She said he then "went down on her". She said she was lying on her back at the time. [79] She said his tongue was on her vagina for a few minutes. [80] She said there were "two sections" to this: first when he was just licking; and second, when his fingers were penetrating. [81] She agreed she did not tell him to stop. [82] She denied a suggestion he was occupied changing a lightbulb during this time. [83] 20. The accused denied in evidence that he licked her vagina. [84] He agreed the strobe must have fired as there was enough light to take photos during this part of the shoot. [85] He agreed he did not know when he changed the strobe. He denied a suggestion that he made up that he had to change the strobe to "cover off" the period between photos. He said he did not realise there was a gap when he first asked in evidence about changing the strobe. When asked whether he realised there was a gap when the complainant was shown the photos, he said, "I don't know how to answer that". He maintained he did not know what happened in the period of six minutes. [86] He denied any sexual purpose for taking a close-up photo of her genitals when she was on all fours. He said he had no idea why he took it as it was not a great shot and would not have made his "collage for bum shots". [87] 21. She said he then "opened up" her vagina with "two thumbs either side" and then inserted his index finger and middle finger into her vagina. [88] She said she asked what he was doing and whether it was normal. She said he told her it was, and that he did it with all his shoots [89] , "to make it wet and look nice for the photos". [90] 22. The accused denied in evidence that he had put his fingers inside her vagina. [91] 23. She said later in the shoot he gave her a blindfold he retrieved from a room just outside the studio. [92] She said he told her he had a surprise for her and she asked what it was. She said he told her to open her mouth and put her hand out. She said she put out her hand and he put his erect penis in it. She said she lifted the blindfold and asked what he was doing, but he did not respond. [93] She said these events occurred at about the time photos were taken depicting her kneeling blindfolded. [94] She denied these photos were taken from a stepladder. [95] 24. The accused denied in evidence that he told her he had a surprise for her, that he told her to open her mouth and hold out her hand, and that he put his penis in it. [96] He said in the 11 minute period between photos depicting her kneeling blindfolded and photos depicting her in a Playboy bunny suit she got changed, but he did not think he did anything else, such as change strobes. [97] 25. She agreed she continued to exchange messages with him on Facebook until June 2017. [98] She agreed she attended another shoot with him in November 2014 for maternity photos with her partner. [99] She agreed that she had requested more shoots with the accused over the years, including a shoot in the studio, the same place that she had been sexually assaulted. [100] She did not remember asking the accused for a naked photograph himself on Facebook messenger sometime after 2 February 2017. [101] She never received a naked photograph of the accused. [102] 26. Counts 13 and 14 concern TM. She attended several shoots with the accused before they allegedly occurred on 22 November 2015. 27. She gave evidence that she was alone with him in his studio. She said he took photos of her naked. She said when she was bent over a pink stool facing the backdrop. She said she heard him walking on the studio floor. She said she then felt him touch her clitoris. She said she sat up and said, "Excuse me, no, that is not okay". She said he laughed it off and said, "I would never fuck you, I'd have a heart attack." She identified photos taken before and after this event. [103] She said during the period of about two minutes between them he got a doona from the lounge and put it on the floor. She said she did not expect, want or ask him to do it. [104] 28. The accused denied in evidence that he touched her vagina or clitoris. [105] He denied telling her, "I would never fuck you, I'd have a heart attack" but agreed he may have said something about her causing him to have a heart attack, that he was conscious of his heart health as he had had a cardiac episode, and that physical exertion may be bad for his heart. [106] He said in the two minute period between photos he removed the stool, got the doona and laid it on the floor. He said he was "99.5 certain" he went to another room to get the doona. [107] He said he doubted the doona was in the studio as he could see no reason for it to be but he could not categorically deny it as he did not have a memory of retrieving it. [108] He accepted a photo taken 40 minutes beforehand showed her lying on the same doona. [109] He then said he must have gone and got it before. He denied he had said he got it in the two minute period to "cover" it. [110] He agreed it was probably his idea she was bent over the stool naked. He said of the photos he took of her genitals in that position: "Not my proudest moment. I could, so I did, I suppose is the best description. It was there to take a photo of, so I did. But also it wasn't what I expected the photo to be and had I said something straight up, it probably would have embarrassed her so it was probably easier to just take a few photos and then move on." 1. She said she got dressed at the end of the shoot. She said he asked if she wanted to see the photos he had taken on the computer. She said she told him she did not have much time. She said she was leaning against the back of the lounge in front of the computer. She said he pulled her onto his lap by the hips. She said he put his hand down her pants and underwear, and touched her clitoris again. She said she pushed his hand away. [111] 2. The accused denied he rubbed her clitoris while she was on his lap and that she was ever on his lap at all. [112] He said he did not remember if he uploaded the photos after the shoot that day. He said she liked to stay and look at the photos when she had time. 3. She agreed she continued to have contact with him and arrange more shoots after the alleged offences, and that she attended another shoot with him in December 2016 at Dudley Beach involving nude photos. [113] She denied she did so because he had not sexually assaulted her. [114] 4. Counts 15 and 16 concern JW. It was her first shoot with the accused when it allegedly occurred on 15 July 2016. 5. She gave evidence that she was wearing a bikini and he was making comments about her appearance. She said that her back was facing the road when he pushed her up against the front of the car so she could not get out. She said she felt his erect penis on her buttocks for about 10 to 15 seconds. [115] She identified photographs taken at about the time. [116] She agreed she was probably standing on a platform as she was short. She denied it would have been physically possible for him to do as she said in this position. [117] 6. The accused denied in evidence that he rubbed his crotch on her bottom. He said he believed it would have been physically impossible because of his build. [118] 7. She said towards the end of the shoot, she was posed in a position over the car's tow ball with the words "eat me" on its cover between her legs. She said he then said, "I'll eat that". [119] She said he squeezed her against the car's boot. She said she felt his erect penis against her buttocks for about 20 seconds. [120] She said she did not expect, or want or ask him to do either act. [121] 8. She said she was upset and not happy afterwards but was still smiling in the photos, as it was her job. [122] She agreed a smile in a photo she said was taken about 10 minutes after the second act was genuine, as she was laughing. She denied she was laughing because she had not been indecently assaulted. [123] 9. The accused denied in evidence he rubbed his crotch against her bottom. [124] He denied he thought it would be "a bit of fun" or a joke. [125] He agreed he tried to get her to move down lower towards the tow ball but "probably not" to make it appear it was entering her. He agreed it was possible he said, "I'd like to eat that" as a "bad joke". [126] 10. The car owner gave evidence that he was present for the entire shoot. He said he did not recall seeing the accused approach her from behind and touch her. [127] He said he recalled the accused saying "sleazy stuff" towards her but could not recall his words. [128] He said he moved his car as required but otherwise stood or sat around watching. [129] He agreed the car was very valuable to him and that he watched it closely so it was not damaged. He said he was watching it carefully during the shoot. He said he watched the whole time photographs were taken of her touching the car but not 100% of the time. [130] He said he may have had his phone with him but could not recall if he used it. [131] He said he could have been looking at cars driving past. [132] He denied she was standing on a platform in the photos of her near the front of the car. [133] He agreed she appeared happy during the shoot but said he had never met her before. [134] 11. She said she had a "very quick" discussion with the car owner when he gave her a lift home [135] but did not say anything about the accused touching her. [136] The car owner said she told him when he gave her a lift home she would never use that photographer again. [137] 12. She said she exchanged Facebook messages with the makeup artist who told her someone else had made a complaint about him. [138] She said in the messages that he rubbed his erect penis against her during the shoot. [139] She agreed she also said the car owner witnessed the whole thing but said she meant he was there the entire time. [140] 13. Counts 17 and 18 concern SB. She had attended three shoots with the accused before they allegedly occurred on 26 July 2016. 14. She said she thought the shoot would involve headshots until the makeup artist left when it progressed to nudes. [141] She said the accused told her to get naked and produced flowers, saying they were to cover her. [142] She said he made sexual comments and asked when she last had sex, and whether she like being tied up. [143] She said she posed on all fours facing the rear of the studio on his instruction. She said he told her she was "very wet." [144] She said he then put his finger inside her and licked her "arsehole". [145] She said she felt his tongue move on her "arse near the hole", back and forth for about five seconds while his finger remained inside her vagina. [146] She said she tensed up and moved forward. She said she told him, "you have to stop that now", and he did. [147] She said she did not expect, ask or want him to do either act. [148] She identified photos taken before and after these acts. [149] The period between them is about three minutes. [150] She said she had previously decided not to shoot alone with the accused. She agreed nothing stopped her from leaving after the headshots were taken. [151] She agreed she later posed naked in a seated position on the floor with her legs apart. She said she agreed to this as she wanted the shoot to finish as quickly as possible so did what he wanted. [152] 15. The accused denied in evidence that he inserted his fingers into her vagina or licked her bottom. [153] He denied asking sexual questions but said they discussed shoots of a 'fetish' nature. He said he could not recall whether he asked her to pose on all fours. He denied he said she was "wet". He said it would have been past what he thought acceptable. [154] He said he did not do the acts alleged during the period of about three minutes between photos. He agreed there was a change of pose but not of clothing or lighting during this period. [155] 16. The complainant said she told people about it though not straight away. [156] She said she returned to her boyfriend after the shoot but did not tell him, as he was abusive and she was not supposed to do many shoots with photographers. [157] 17. She said she told a Port Macquarie photographer first. She said she "probably" told him the accused "put his finger in my vagina and licked my arse". [158] The Port Macquarie photographer said he had known her for five or six years. [159] He said they were at his studio after a shoot. He said they spoke about arrest of a photographer but also that it was before he saw a Facebook post about one being charged on 18 October 2017. [160] He said she told him that the accused started "fingering" her in a shoot. He said she did not tell him the accused had licked her bottom. [161] He said she appeared rattled and it was unusual for her. He described her as more quiet than usual. [162] 18. The complainant said she next told a Central Coast photographer, when other photographers and another model were present at a workshop studio in July 2017 [163] . She said it was in similar terms to what she told the Port Macquarie photographer. [164] She denied she told them the accused pinned her down and threatened to ruin her career if she told anyone. [165] 19. The Central Coast photographer said the complainant told them she had a "bad experience" with the accused. She said the complainant told them he "put her (as said) fingers inside of her and licked her bum". She said she advised the complainant to go to police but she said, "I think it's probably too late to go to the police" and she was worried she would not get more work, as he was quite big in the photography community. [166] She agreed the complainant said she had been "pinned down" and he told her not to tell anyone or he would ruin her career. [167] 20. The studio co-owner said the complainant told them after the workshop "at least this photoshoot went better than one of my previous ones". She said the complainant then told them the photographer, Allan Cameron, had "fingered" her, "pinned" her down and assaulted her. [168] She said the complainant said she did not want to come forward, as he told her he would ruin her career. [169] She said the complainant appeared scared, as her arms were crossed and she was looking down and shaking a bit. [170] 21. The other model present stated to police she could not recall "word for word" what the complainant said but did remember her saying something like Allan Cameron had made sexual advances during a shoot she had with him resulting in her being "restrained and forced to partake in sexual intercourse". She stated the complainant appeared troubled but not crying or severely distressed at the time. [171] 22. The complainant said she contacted police after a model gave her the officer's phone number. [172] She agreed she had been incorrect in telling police she had no contact with the accused after 29 July 2016 [173] . She agreed she had continued to exchange messages with him until mid-2017. [174] She said she had deleted the later messages because of her boyfriend at the time. [175] She agreed they planned a further shoot. [176] She denied she continued to have contact with him and discussed further shoots because he had not touched her. [177] 23. Count 19 concerns MG. It was her first shoot with him when it allegedly occurred on 20 November 2016. 24. She gave evidence that when the shoot began he made comments like, "You're so fucking hot, you're so fucking sexy" and, "I don't know why you're a fucking lesbian". [178] She said he told her, "Don't worry, I can't get a hard on because I'm on heart medication". She said he directed her to pose on her hands and knees, and said, "Put your arse in the air like you want to be fucked." She said he told her to lie on her back and spread her legs, and put her fingers in her vagina. [179] She said he came up and slapped her bottom when she was lying on the sand near the water. [180] She said it was on the left cheek [181] . She said she was naked and lying on her stomach, with her right arm straightened out in front of her and her left leg bent towards her hip. [182] She identified photos taken before and after the slap. [183] She said she thought footprints were apparent in the bottom right corner of the photo taken after. She agreed no footprints were visible between them and her bottom but said the sand appeared "ruffled" and "not as smooth as the other areas". [184] She said she did not expect, want or ask him to do it. [185] 25. The accused denied in evidence he slapped her bottom. [186] He agreed he knew she was a lesbian but denied he told her, "I don't know why you're a fucking lesbian." He said he did could not see himself saying, "You're so fucking hot, you're so fucking sexy", as he would not have spoken to her in that way, but agreed he could have told her she was sexy. He denied he said, "I can't get a hard on. I'm on heart medication" but agreed he could have said something about her giving him a heart attack [187] and that he had a heart attack previously. [188] 26. She agreed that later on the same day he sent her a photo and she replied "Oh my god, this is amazing, thank you so much, you're absolutely amazing at what you do, thanks so much for a great morning". She said parts of the morning were great but other parts not so much. She agreed she told him she looked forward to more shoots with him and they worked well together. [189] She agreed she attended another shoot with him in January 2017. [190] It was an engagement shoot with her fiancée. [191] 27. Count 20 concerns RC. She attended two shoots with the accused before it allegedly occurred on 16 April 2017. She gave evidence that they were walking up to the carpark at the beach after a shoot when her bikini bottom started coming undone. She said she mentioned her bikini had started coming undone and he said, "Oh, I had better slowdown in case they fall off so I can see". [192] She said when they got to the car park, he "went in" for a hug and put his right arm around her. What she said then was not clearly recorded but was to the effect he did something with his left hand and her dress [193] . She said she grabbed the side of her bikini to get its ties and he moved his right hand to her thigh and then her "butt". She said the palm of his hand brushed along her "butt". [194] She said it was on the outside of her clothing, and she was wearing the bikini and a dress at the time. [195] She said the hand definitely touched her skin on her hip. She said she was "pretty sure" it touched her "butt". [196] She said she "definitely" did not expect him to do it and did not ask or want him to do it. [197] 28. The accused gave evidence that he remembered her stopping to do something but said he did not really see as he was a fair way back struggling to climb the stairs. He said he would have had a rest at the top and put all the equipment in the car. He denied he touched her bottom. He agreed he "probably" gave her a hug though he said he had no memory of it. [198] He said he would not have touched her in that way as it important to get her to come back again. He said he had rules as a photographer: "Rule number one is: don't touch the models. Rule number two is: if in doubt, refer to rule number one." [199] 1. She attended no further shoots with him. [200] She agreed she sent him a Facebook message the next day saying "thank you as well, such a fun shoot." She agreed this was "somewhat" true. [201] She sent him another message later asking if he got enough images he was happy to submit to a magazine. [202] 2. She said she told her partner but could not recall telling anyone else about it. [203] She was shown a Facebook message she sent a friend saying, "At a beach shoot he gave me a hug before we left and he was trying to grab the side of bikini bottoms as a joke but yeah that was all, thank goodness." [204] She agreed she sent the message to her friend. She denied she did not mention him touching her bottom because it did not happen. She said she was "playing it down", as she did not like its seriousness, and did not want to tell her friend all the details as she did not need to know. [205] 3. Count 21 and Counts 23 to 26 concern EP. It was her first shoot with the accused when they allegedly occurred on 26 June 2017. 4. She gave evidence that they arranged it on Facebook and agreed he would pay her $50 per hour. [206] She said early in the shoot, he placed one hand over her bra, then pulled one strap down, and pinched her nipple with two of his fingers. [207] She said she did not expect, ask or want him to do that. [208] She said "going to the shoot, I wasn't expecting him to touch it or in the shoot when I got into the studio, I didn't expect him to do it". [209] She agreed she did not tell him to stop. She said she told him she just wanted to get back to the shoot. [210] She said she went along with his sexual acts as she wanted to be paid and needed photos. [211] She said this was why she agreed to allow him to pinch her nipples. [212] She said she allowed him to pinch her nipples, as she did not stop him, and just said she wanted to continue doing the shoot. She said he did not forcefully make her. [213] 5. The accused denied in evidence that he squeezed her nipple. He agreed he untwisted her bra strap early in the shoot but denied touching her, and said he checked with her she was ok with him doing it. [214] 6. She said she lay on her back on a red rug at his instruction. She said he then got on top of her in a "push up position" and proceeded to "grind" his crotch against hers. She said this lasted a minute or two. She said she was wearing a bra but could not recall if she was wearing underpants at the time. [215] She said he told her he wanted to fuck her and she told him she had her period but he said "that's ok, I can just fuck you up the arse". She said she told him it was wrong, they should not be doing it, and she just wanted to get back to the shoot. She said she did not expect, ask, or want him to do it. [216] She said he did not forcefully make her do it. [217] She said she agreed to allow him to do it, as she wanted to be paid for the day and needed photos. [218] 7. The accused denied in evidence that he lay on her and ground his crotch against hers. [219] He denied he said he could fuck her in the arse and said she did not tell him she had her period at this time but at the start of the shoot when she came back from the toilet. [220] 8. She said she posed on all fours facing the backdrop at his instruction. She said she felt him insert his fingers into her vagina. [221] She said she did not expect, ask or want him to do it. [222] She agreed she consented to it, as she wanted to be paid for the day. [223] She said she understood consent to mean "he didn't forcefully make me do it". [224] She later said she did not allow it. [225] 9. The accused denied inserting his fingers into her vagina when she was on her hands and knees. He agreed he took photos of her in that position. [226] 10. She said he then asked her to choose a ruler or a whip and she chose the ruler. She said he told her to say "mercy" and hit her with it seven times on her buttocks. She said she said "mercy" once and he stopped. [227] She said when he stopped hitting her, he rubbed the ruler against her vagina for a few seconds. [228] She said she did not expect, want or ask him to hit her with the ruler or rub her vagina with it. [229] She said she did not agree or consent to the ruler being placed near or on her vagina. [230] She said she did not allow him to spank her with it and did not want him to touch her with it. [231] She agreed use of the ruler was her idea but denied use of "mercy" as a 'safe word' was her idea. [232] 11. The accused gave evidence that they discussed using a small red suede "flogger whip" but she was not comfortable with it and suggested the ruler. He said they tried to stage some photos with it. He said he suggested they use a safe word if she decided it was not right and she suggested "mercy". He said it stopped the moment she said it. [233] He said he "tapped" her bottom with the ruler to make it pink but it did not work so they attempted to balance it on her "bum" but it did not work either and her knees were getting sore so they abandoned the idea. He said he did not touch her with the ruler around or on her vagina in his opinion. [234] 12. She said she was later on her knees facing the front of the room. She said he told her to close her eyes and she did. She said she felt a blindfold going around her face. She said he grabbed her hand and put it on his penis. She said he told her to rub it and she did a few times before she let go. [235] She said he paid her $150 after the shoot and told her not to tell anyone, as it would ruin his reputation and he had a wife. [236] She said she did not expect, want or ask him to it. [237] She said she agreed to allow him to do it as she wanted to be paid for the day and needed photos. [238] She said she did not want to touch his penis but "he took my hand and then I touched it, but he told me to do it." [239] She agreed he told her in the car before the shoot and again during it that she did not have to do anything she was uncomfortable with. She agreed she told police in her statement, "He said to me you don't have to do anything you don't want to". [240] 13. The accused denied in evidence he put his penis in her hand. [241] He said she touched him on the leg and upper thigh when he was shooting her while she was blindfolded. He said it made him freeze while she unzipped his pants and performed oral sex on him for a short period until her hand contacted his herniated bellybutton which snapped him out of things, and he went back to his desk and got his heart rate under control. [242] 14. She agreed she sent messages to the accused shortly after the shoot saying "hey, thank you for today." [243] She agreed she said in a message they worked well together. [244] She agreed she asked about another shoot but said she did not mean it. [245] 15. She said she told another photographer she had worked with and his partner that night, and also her mother who was overseas. [246] She said she first told the other photographer in Facebook messages. [247] The messages commenced at 4.31pm, shortly after she got home from the shoot. [248] She told him she had fun at first. [249] Later, she said "I can't go back to the photographer" with a sad face emoji. She said, "I'm gonna wait til I get my photos in the next few days and block him" as he was "way too pervy, I mean over the top". She said she was "scared a bit." She said in response to a question, "I was fake smiling most of the time. I only wanted the money and photos by the end of it pretending to have fun." She asked him not to tell his partner. [250] She said then he called her and she told him the photographer "touched my nipple. He had also grinded on me. He also used a ruler on me." She said she did not go into detail over the phone as she was very distraught. She said he told her she had to go to the police and his wife was on her way to take her to the station. [251] 16. The photographer recorded the conversation. A police transcript of it included the following passages: "And then he would just say that he would fuck me and everything like that"; "No, I was lying [about having fun], I didn't know what to say"; "He made me kneel and he hit me with a ruler on my arse"; "And then I didn't know what to do. Then he said to put my hand up and then he had his dick out and I didn't know what to do"; "And then he said, I, I said I didn't want to and I, I mean I just said I didn't want to, I'm on my period, and then he was just saying, that's just an excuse"; and "Saying that he would have sex with me and I just said I didn't want sex. I was acting the whole time like I was fine with it." [252] The other photographer asked her ""But you just said you said no when it came to the sex" and she replied "But I was still acting like everything was okay because I just didn't know what to do". [253] 1. She said the photographer's partner picked her up at about 11.30pm and took her to the police station. [254] The partner gave evidence that the complainant was crying, sobbing and sounded terrified on the phone. [255] She said she remembered the complainant said he "put a ruler between her legs and then inside of her". She said the complainant said he did not believe she was on her period and put his finger insider her. [256] She said she went to the complainant's house and took her to a police station. [257] She said the complainant was "white as a ghost" and sobbing, and she could not get any words out of her. [258] 2. Police searched the accused's studio the following day. Police told him they were there to investigate alleged offences with EP. He told them he "took it slowly" with her. He said, "I can't think I touched her in any way". He commented that a photographer he knew had had a "far more out there day". [259] 3. The accused made a statement with his then solicitor for use in related court proceedings. It is dated 10 August 2017. Its author attached it to a letter dated the following day. The statement is unsigned but he confirmed in evidence it was his statement. It provided an account of events with EP to the effect of the account he gave in evidence. [260] Consideration 1. I turn now to address my assessment of the evidence on individual counts. 2. Count 1 concerns SF. She appeared genuine in her evidence. She was thoughtful and considered in her account. She described her relationship with the accused as 'complicated', and acknowledged she realised only in hindsight he had been "pushing boundaries" but she was naïve at the time in thinking she had to put up with it. She made concessions where appropriate. She did not take opportunities to implicate him. She acknowledged she pinched her own nipples to make them hard before he did. 3. Her account of Count 1 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described his use of the thumb and forefinger of each hand to pinch the nipples of both her breasts at once. She recalled her state of mind at the time. She said she felt uncomfortable but that he stopped after a matter of seconds. Her account of the circumstances was coherent. She recounted that she had a satin sheet over breasts, as the shoot involved 'implied nudes' for her partner. It is plausible in this context that the accused suggested her nipples protrude should through the sheet as a pretext to pinch them. 4. The accused denied the act and that he had any reason to do it. [261] 5. She exchanged Facebook messages with him about further shoots and attended two further shoots with him, but explained she needed photos to be a model, and she did not need to pay him, and she intended to bring her partner to any further shoots. [262] This is also consistent with the naivety she recognised in hindsight she had with him 'pushing boundaries' but her thinking she had to put up with it. The fact she continued to have contact with him after the alleged offence is understandable in these circumstances and does not cause significant doubt as to the truthfulness of her account. 6. She complained about it about three years after the event but many years before the accused's arrest. She told her partner that the accused had touched her nipples following the 2014 Redhead beach shoot. Her partner's evidence was clear that she told him about it that day but unclear as to when she said it had happened. [263] The uncertainty in his evidence as to the latter causes no doubt that she told him about the act. This complaint evidence strongly supports her account. 7. She did not expect his act and so cannot have consented to it. He must have realised that she might not consent to it, as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was an invasive act with an intimate part of her body. It occurred in the context of a shoot involving 'implied' nude photos and his suggestion her nipple should be erect to protrude through the sheet. But he did not purport to have any reason to do it. It was indecent in the circumstances. 8. In summary, the evidence strongly supports all elements of Count 1. 9. Counts 2 to 4 concern NW. She appeared genuine in her evidence. She was frank and unguarded in her responses. She volunteered she wanted to show off her "assets" following her breast enhancement and that she attended a shoot at a tattoo parlour with a bikie gang. She made concessions where appropriate. She agreed she could have said no if she did not want to do anything. [264] She acknowledged she could not remember in which shoots particular events occurred. [265] This is credible as there were many. She did not take opportunities to implicate him. She did not embrace a suggestion that he 'zoomed in' on her genitals, though photographs confirm he did. [266] She acknowledged she progressed to nude shots as she got more confident and that he did not make her adopt revealing poses. [267] Her account comprised features with the ring of truth. She recounted that he told her to get into the "doggy" position but she did not know what he meant, as she was not then sexually active, so he had to show her. His account of this was unconvincing. He denied he would have used the term "doggy", as it was crass, but said he was the "king of innuendo" and told dirty jokes "all the time". [268] 10. Her accounts of an event she described occurring on the occasion of Count 2 differed. She said he pushed her head down but also that he asked her to put her head down. [269] The inconsistency did not concern an act involved in the offence. Nor was it such as to significantly affect the reliability of her account generally. 11. She attended further shoots with him after Count 2. She explained she did not know what he did was wrong or understand indecent assault, and he did not charge, unlike other photographers. [270] She exchanged Facebook messages with him after Counts 3 and 4. She initially said she blocked him afterwards and unblocked him some years later, but then blocked him again when he suggested another shoot. [271] But she invited him to shoot her wedding and to her child's first birthday in Facebook messages months afterwards. She also arranged with him to have a shoot with her sister and said he was the only photographer she trusted. She explained she intended to go with her sister and thought he would not do anything unless alone. The nature and extent of her continuing contact with him despite his alleged acts is of some significance in assessing the reliability of her account. 12. Her account of the circumstances of Count 2 was consistent with other evidence. She recounted that he commented on the appearance of her vagina and suggested she watch him edit photos on his computer. The last photo he had taken of her was a close-up of her genitals from the rear. [272] Her account of the acts comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She recounted that he "swizzled" in his chair and then "plonked" her on his lap with his hands on her hips. She spontaneously moved her body as she recounted these acts, in a manner consistent with vivid recollection of the experience. 13. The accused denied the act. But his account of the circumstances was difficult to accept. [273] He maintained he took a photo 'zoomed in' on her genitals to depict her 'shoes and bum'. But he must have moved to take the photo from a position such that her genitals were clearly visible. [274] 14. Complaint evidence supports her account of the act. She told her friend and her then partner about it. 15. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was not an intimate part of her body but he pulled her onto his lap when she was naked. It occurred in a context where he told her he wanted her to see photos of her genitals and so it had a sexual connotation. It was indecent in the circumstances. 16. Her account of Count 3 was consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She demonstrated with spontaneous physical movements as she described his act in a manner consistent with vivid recollection of the experience. Her account of the circumstances provided a plausible pretext for the accused to do it. She recounted that she had recently had a breast augmentation and he had repeatedly asked to photograph her "new" breasts. 17. No complaint evidence supports her account for this Count. She did not tell her friend or her then partner about him touching her breasts. But neither does the lack of complaint about it detract from the credibility of her account. She explained it was degrading but she agreed him pulling her onto his lap was too. The fact she did not complain about this act notwithstanding she did about another is understandable, given its greater invasiveness and degradation, and her consequently greater shame and embarrassment. 18. The accused denied the act. But his account comprised inconsistencies. He initially maintained he only took photos from behind the lounge where he could not have touched her as she said. But ultimately he conceded he did so in front of it too. [275] He insisted he hated camera straps but then acknowledged he owned one. [276] 19. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. She confirmed emphatically she did not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it, as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was an invasive act with an intimate part of her body and she was naked when he did it. It was indecent in the circumstances. 20. Her account of Count 4 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She gesticulated spontaneously as she described her position and visibly recoiled when she recounted the feeling of his touch. Her demeanour in recounting the act was consistent with her experience. She was visibly upset at the suggestion it had never happened. Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. Photos she said were taken immediately before the act depict her in with her legs spread and knees bent. 21. The accused denied the act. But his account of the circumstances was difficult to accept. His explanation for taking close-up photos of her genitals immediately beforehand was incoherent and implausible. [277] 22. No complaint evidence supports her account of this act. She did not tell her friend or her then partner about it either. But neither does the lack of complaint about it detract from the credibility of her account. She explained this act was also degrading. The fact she did not complain about this act notwithstanding she did about another is understandable, given its greater degree of invasiveness and degradation, and her consequently greater shame and embarrassment. 23. She did not expect it and so cannot have consented to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it, as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It occurred in the context of a shoot involving nude photos and she was naked when he did it. It was an intimate part of the body. And it was an invasive act. It was indecent in the circumstances. 24. In summary, the evidence strongly supports all elements of Counts 2, 3 and 4. 25. Counts 5 to 8 concern TC. She appeared genuine in her evidence. She was quiet and sad, consistent with her experiences. Her recollection of events was accurate. When it was suggested the accused's payment of money was to help her with car repairs, she noted it had not been damaged at that time. She made concessions where appropriate and did not seek to implicate him. She agreed she partially exposed herself to catch his attention in their first shoot. [278] She said she knew she was exposed in some poses and had no problem with it. She said she wore no underwear to avoid lines in clothing and did not attribute this to the accused until directly asked. She acknowledged she adopted revealing poses instinctively or as she changed positions, rather than at his direction. [279] She continued to have contact with him after the offences. She exchanged Facebook messages with him and arranged further shoots. She arranged another shoot with him the day after Count 7. [280] She invited him to attend her 21st birthday celebration. She acknowledged that she treated him like a friend and felt comfortable shooting with him. [281] Her explanation for her continuing contact is consistent with an honest appraisal of their relationship and supports her credibility. 26. The accused's account of their relationship was implausible in respects. He suggested he took photos of her breasts, bottom and genitals accidentally or unintentionally. [282] The number of instances makes this untenable. 27. No complaint evidence supports her account. She did not disclose it to police when they first contacted her and said she had no issue with the accused but she decided to disclose it after thinking about it. Neither does the failure to complain detract from her credibility. It is readily reconciled with shame and embarrassment resulting from her experiences and apprehension regarding proceedings that would result from disclosure. 28. Her account of Count 5 comprised detail with the ring of truth. She described his hands as positioned "low" when they cuddled but then moving to and squeezing her buttocks. Her account of the circumstances was coherent and consistent with other evidence. She recounted that when they greeted he commented he had missed her but she still had a "nice bum". They had not then seen each other then for about four months. He acknowledged he thought she had a 'nice bum' [283] . He made many comments about it in their Facebook messages [284] . 29. His account was not based on recollection. He variously said he did not recall it but would not have done it, as it was not the kind of thing he did with her. He expressed a belief he did not do it and categorically denied it. His insistence it was not the kind of thing he would do with her is difficult to reconcile with his reference to giving her a 'naughty pinch' on the 'bum' in a Facebook message [285] . 30. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it, as he gave her no opportunity to do so. She was clothed at the time but it was an intimate part of her body. He touched it in a way that had a sexual overtone. She was in her teens and he was middle aged. It was indecent in the circumstances. 31. Her account of Count 7 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described pulling away when the fingers of his right hand touched her genitals in a manner consistent with vivid recollection of it. Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. The shoot culminated with photos depicting her naked. 32. The accused denied the act. His account of the circumstances was unconvincing. He had difficulty in evidence explaining how the shoot ended if not as she alleged. 33. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it, as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was an invasive act with an intimate part of her body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 34. Her account of Count 8 comprised detail with the ring of truth. She said she asked to be blindfolded so she did not have to watch. This is consistent with difficulty confronting her participation in the act and evident shame over it. It was evident she was particularly embarrassed recounting these events. Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. She said she agreed to do it as she trusted him not to tell anyone. [286] Other evidence supports this. He told her in a Facebook message on 21 May 2012, two days before, "What happens between us stays between us". [287] 35. Documentary evidence supports her account in some respects. Her diary records he paid her $300 about the time of the first incident on 23 May 2012, although none about the time of the second on 20 June 2012. Her accounts of the amount paid for the second incident on 20 June 2012 were inconsistent. But she explained she had corrected the account in her statement to police after reading her diary before giving evidence. 36. The accused's account of the circumstances was difficult to reconcile with other evidence. He maintained he gave her money to help her with car repairs but Facebook messages confirmed it was damaged at other times. [288] He claimed he could not have afforded to pay her but acknowledged he was able to pay much more for his car. 37. Subsequent Facebook messages contain multiple references to 'KFC'. Whether this was code for cunnilingus need not be resolved, but his reference to KFC as only "second best" is not inconsistent with it and her statement "you can't eat me" does not necessarily imply it had never occurred in any event. [289] 38. The fact he offered to pay her for sex twice supports an inference he intended she engage in a practice of it. But it is also plausible he wanted her to have sex with him on each of those occasions. She attended many more photo shoots with him and he did not again offer to pay her for sex. Their Facebook messages continued for years but do not refer to a practice of sex for payment. The evidence does not then support only the inference that he intended she engage in the practice of sex for payment. 39. In summary, the evidence strongly supports the elements of Counts 5 and 7 but not an element of Count 8. 40. Counts 9 to 12 concern NS. She appeared genuine in her evidence. Her demeanour was quiet and sad. She appeared resigned to recount her experiences despite evident discomfort over it. She exhibited particular discomfort when recounting her compliance and failure to protest during it. This was consistent with an honest account of her experience. She made concessions where appropriate. She acknowledged she complied with his requests to strip, lie on her back and get on all fours. She agreed nothing stopped her from leaving during the incident and that she did not tell the accused to stop during the period of about five minutes he performed cunnilingus on her. [290] She acknowledged she continued to have contact with him. She agreed she exchanged Facebook messages about further shoots and they sometimes made jokes with sexual innuendos. 41. The accused denied the acts. But he confirmed the reliability of her account in some respects. She said she asked him for the explicit photos he had taken of her after the shoot but he told her he had lost them when a hard drive failed. [291] He agreed he told her this though it was a "half-truth", as a hard drive had retained the images. [292] 42. Her account of Count 9 comprised detail with the ring of truth. She described the accused using his tongue to lick her genitals in a way that seemed consistent with recollection of the experience. Her demeanour in recounting it was consistent with her experience. She cried when acknowledging she said nothing, consistent with genuine shame over it. Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. Photos depict her posing naked on all fours including close-ups of her genitals. The next series of photos depicts her lying on her back. The period between them is about six minutes. [293] This is consistent with her account of the circumstances and duration of the acts. 43. The accused's denied the act. But his account of the circumstances was demonstrably unreliable. He maintained he was changing a strobe during the period that elapsed between photos. But dark photos consistent with strobe failures demonstrate this occurred at other times. [294] Nor was his account candid. He could not explain why he took close-up photos of her genitals. [295] 44. She did not expect the act and so could not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so, at least at first. It was an invasive act with an intimate part of her body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 45. Her account of Count 10 did not clearly articulate a second act discrete from that relied on for Count 9. Rather, her account was consistent with one act of cunnilingus continuing until the digital penetration relied on for Count 11 commenced. 46. She did clearly articulate the act relied on for Count 11. Her account of it comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described his use of both his thumbs "either side" to open up her genitals and his insertion of his index and middle fingers into her vagina. Her account comprised features with a ring of truth. She said she asked him what he was doing, and whether it was normal, and he told her it was to make it "wet" and look nice for the photos. 47. He denied the act. As already noted, his account of the circumstances was demonstrably unreliable. 48. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. The fact she did not protest or resist does not indicate otherwise. He must have realised she might not consent to it, as he gave her no opportunity. 49. Her account of Count 12 comprised detail with the ring of truth. She described the accused telling her he had "a surprise" for her and to put her hand out. She recounted that she then felt his penis in her right hand. Her account was coherent in describing her reaction to the act in lifting the blindfold to ask what he was doing. Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. Photos depict her blindfolded and on her knees. [296] The next series of photos depicts her in a Playboy bunny suit. The 11 minute period between them accommodates the act consistently with her account. 50. The accused denied the act. But his account of the circumstances was unconvincing. His account of the 11 minute period between the photos was only that she got changed. [297] He confirmed her account in some respects. He agreed he probably told her to pose kneeling and blindfolded. [298] 51. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. He told her he had a surprise for her before he did it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was an invasive act with an intimate part of his body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 52. In summary, the evidence strongly supports the elements of Counts 9, 11 and 12 but not Count 10. 53. Counts 13 and 14 concern TM. She appeared genuine in evidence. She was quiet and calm in her responses but also frank. She made concessions where appropriate. She acknowledged when she was unable to recall details of events. She did not take opportunities to implicate him. She agreed she could not recall why she adopted some revealing poses and that she knew when he took some photos that her genitals were exposed. No complaint evidence supports her account. She did not disclose her allegations about his conduct when she was initially contacted. Neither does this detract from her credibility. She explained she did not expect police to contact her and did not intend to report it, but then decided she would after thinking about it. [299] She continued to have contact with him. She attended another shoot with him about a year later. [300] She told police she did not communicate with him for some time after the offences but in a Facebook message two days later had agreed to attend more photo shoots with him. [301] She explained her recollection when she made her statement to police was incorrect in this respect. 54. Her account of Count 13 comprised details consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described the sound of him walking across the floorboards as he approached her before the act. Her account of him touching her clitoris was clear and precise. Her account of the circumstances comprised features with the ring of truth. She recounted that she said, "Excuse me, that is not OK", and he laughed and said, "I would never fuck you, I'd have a heart attack". It is plausible he did so given his acknowledged heart condition at the time. Her account of the circumstances was also consistent with other evidence. She described it occurring when she was bent over a pink stool. [302] Photos depict her positioned over the stool. [303] The next photo was taken about two minutes later. [304] The period between photos accommodates the act consistently with her account, even with reposing and set changes including removal of the stool and the doona being placed on the floor. Her account of circumstances was demonstrably reliable. She confirmed he brought out the doona when the shoot commenced and left it on the lounge when it was suggested to her that he had to go to a storeroom to get it. 55. The accused denied the act. But his account of the circumstances was unreliable. He had maintained that he was "99.5% sure" he got the doona from his storeroom during this period. [305] But photos taken well before depict it already in the studio, demonstrating that her account was reliable and his was not. [306] Nor was his account frank. He could not explain why he took photos of her positioned over the stool including close-ups of her genitals [307] , other than to say he did as he could, or as "it was just there". [308] 56. There is no evidentiary basis for any reasonable inference that his act might not have involved penetration of the labia majora to an extent. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. Her reaction when he did it confirms she did not. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. 57. Her account of Count 14 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described him pulling her onto his lap and putting his hand down her pants and beneath her underwear to touch her clitoris. She demonstrated as she recounted the acts involved, making spontaneous movements replicating his hands grabbing her waist and pulling her onto his lap, and her action of grabbing his forearm when he touched her clitoris. Her account that he touched her clitoris was clear and precise. She conceded she said nothing when he did it. But this is understandable as her response in pushing his hand away had brought it to an end in any event. Her account of the circumstances also comprised detail consistent with other evidence. She recounted that he had plugged his camera into his computer and she was leaning against the corner of the lounge talking to him while he did it. The video recording of the police search of his studio depicts the lounge, desk, chair and computer in proximity, and there was no suggestion they had moved significantly since. 58. The accused denied the act. His account of the circumstances suggested it could not have occurred. He said she would have left before he could have uploaded the photos from the shoot, although he acknowledged he could have uploaded some photos from the shoot before she did. [309] 59. There is no evidentiary basis for a reasonable inference that the act might not have involved penetration of the labia majora to an extent. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. Her reaction when he did it confirms she did not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. And he was on notice from her response to his first act that she would not consent to it. 60. In summary, the evidence strongly supports the elements of Counts 13 and 14. 61. Counts 15 and 16 concern JW. She appeared genuine in her evidence. She was calm and careful in her responses but forthright too. She made concessions where appropriate. She acknowledged she said nothing in response to the accused's acts and that she was genuinely smiling in some photos afterwards. Her vision was impaired but was better at the time than at trial. Her assertion that the accused did the acts was based on physical sensation rather than observation, in any event. The accused was substantially greater in height and girth than Mr Potter, the only other man present, and it was not suggested Mr Potter did the acts. 62. Complaint evidence provides some support for her account. She told Mr Potter after the shoot the accused made inappropriate comments and she would not use him as a photographer again, though she did not mention the acts. [310] But she told a friend in a Facebook message after the accused's arrest that he had rubbed his erect penis against her during the shoot. [311] 63. Her account of Count 15 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described her back facing the road and him pushing her up against the front of the car, and feeling him rubbing his erect penis against her buttocks. [312] Her account of the circumstances makes this plausible. She recounted that the accused had been commenting on the bikini she was wearing while posing with a cloth as if cleaning the car. 64. The accused denied the act. He asserted it was physical impossible. [313] But it is not apparent that either his physique or their respective positions made it so. 65. The car owner was an independent witness and present throughout but did not see it. The shoot spanned a couple of hours but he generally kept his car in view, as he was keenly interested in it. He acknowledged he was not watching all the time, as he moved to get out of the sun [314] and may have watched cars drive past. [315] But he was watching at about the time she said the act occurred. [316] She said the act occurred for 10 to 15 seconds. The accused would have had to approach her and then retreat to do it. 66. She did not expect the act and so could not consent to it. She was emphatic in confirming she did not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was it was an invasive act with an intimate part of his body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 67. Her account of Count 16 also comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described being pressed up against the boot of the car and feeling his erect penis against her buttocks again. Her account of the circumstances is consistent with other evidence and makes this plausible. She recounted that he said, "I'll eat that", referring to her, when she was in the area where it occurred. [317] Photos taken then depict her posed such that her genitals were above the car's tow ball cover with the words, "Eat me". 68. The accused denied the act. He said he did not think he said the words she recounted but acknowledged he might have done so, as a "bad joke". [318] 69. Nor did Mr Potter see this act. He said he assumed he was watching at the time she said it occurred. [319] She said it occurred for about 20 seconds. The accused would again have had to approach her and retreat to do it. 70. She did not expect the act and so could not consent to it. She was emphatic in confirming she did not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was an invasive act with an intimate part of his body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 71. In summary, the evidence supports the elements of Counts 15 and 16 but the fact an independent witness did not see the acts leaves doubt. 72. Counts 17 and 18 concern SB. She appeared genuine in her evidence. She was generally matter of fact in her responses but clearly had difficulty controlling her emotion when she came to recount the accused's acts. She made concessions where appropriate. She volunteered she knew two other complainants when their names were inadvertently shown to her, demonstrating her candour. [320] She continued to have contact with him afterwards. She explained she did not want to work with him without others present [321] and intended to take her sister [322] . But she acknowledged she agreed to attend another shoot before a makeup artist was secured for it and did attend further shoots with no-one else present. She told police she ceased contact with him but agreed she arranged further shoots with him in Facebook messages. [323] 73. Complaint evidence supports her account. She did not tell her boyfriend when she saw him later on the day of the shoot. But she explained he was abusive. She made complaints to others about the accused's acts. She told the Port Macquarie photographer the accused had "fingered" her. He described her as 'rattled' at the time. She told the Central Coast photographer, the workshop studio co-owner and another model about a year after the offences. The photographer recalled she said he "fingered" her and licked her bum. [324] The studio co-owner recalled she said he "fingered" her though she then left the conversation. She described the complainant looking down and shaking at the time. The model stated the complainant said something like she was restrained and forced to participate in sexual intercourse. She described the complainant as troubled but not severely distressed. 74. Both the Central Coast photographer and workshop studio co-owner recalled she said he "pinned" her down and told her not to tell anyone or he would ruin her career. [325] She denied he did these things and that she said he did. [326] Their evidence is inconsistent with hers in this respect. The inconsistency is significant. But their evidence as to the terms of her complaints about the acts is consistent with her account. And this evidence strongly supports her account. Witnesses' observations of her demeanour at the time of her complaints, also strongly support it. 75. Her account of Count 17 comprised detail with the ring of truth. She recounted that the accused asked her after the makeup artist left when she last had sex, then told her to get on all fours and said, "You're very wet". She described him then inserting his fingers into her vagina. [327] Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. She recounted that mirror images were an inspiration for the shoot. Photos depict her face in a mirror. She recounted that the accused produced flowers to cover her naked body when the makeup artist left. [328] Photos depict her with the flowers. [329] She identified photos taken immediately before and after the acts. [330] The period of about three minutes between them accommodates the acts. Photos were otherwise generally taken in quick succession. 76. The accused denied the act. His account of the circumstances was incomplete. He said he could not recall why he had the flowers present. [331] It is unnecessary to resolve the suggestion he did so because he was planning the offence. 77. She did not expect the act and so could not consent to it. She was emphatic in denying she consented to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. 78. Her account of Count 18 also comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described feeling the accused's tongue move back and forth on her "arse near the hole" for about five seconds. [332] Her account of her response was coherent and plausible. She recounted that she tensed up, moved forward and away from him, then said, "You have stop that now". 79. The accused denied this act too. 80. She did not expect it and so could not consent to it. Her response confirmed she did not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was an invasive act with an intimate part of her body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 81. In summary, the evidence strongly supports the elements of Counts 17 and 18. 82. Count 19 concerns MG. She appeared genuine in her evidence. Her affect was sad consistent with the experience she recounted. But her responses were clear and precise. She made concessions where appropriate. She acknowledged she complied with his request and put her hand on and then in her vagina. She agreed she continued to have contact with him afterwards. She thanked him for a "great shoot" and said she felt comfortable in Facebook messages later that day. [333] She agreed to attend further shoots with him [334] . She explained she did not have to pay for them. No complaint evidence supports her account. She told no-one before she contacted Crime Stoppers on learning of the arrest of a photographer. 83. Her account comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She recounted he had told her, "Get on your knees, and put your arse in the air, like you want to be fucked"; and "You're so sexy, I don't know why you're a fucking lesbian"; and that he could not get a "hard on" as he was on heart medication. [335] She described precisely her position at the time, lying on her stomach with her right arm outstretched and her left leg bent up, and identified where the slap struck her left buttock. Her account of these circumstances was consistent with other evidence. She identified photos taken immediately before and after the act. [336] The photos depict her position consistently with her account. The photo taken immediately after the act depicts no apparent footprints made since the preceding photo. But her account was that he "came up" and slapped her buttocks does not imply he walked directly over the sand between their respective positions depicted in the photo. [337] 84. The accused denied the act. But his account of the circumstances preceding it was implausible in respects. He claimed he was trying to get an "implied" shot but she did not grasp what he wanted, and "went further", putting her hand on and then in her vagina [338] . But the next photo he took depicts her genitals and not her head. [339] He could not explain why he took it. He said he had "no idea why" and he "just took" it. 85. His evidence supports her account in some respects. He acknowledged he might have said something about her giving him a heart attack and that he had a heart condition at the time. He denied he used the words lesbian and "fucking" but agreed he knew her sexual orientation and could have said something about her being sexy. He acknowledged he picked the location as the sand was undisturbed because it would ruin the photos. It is improbable he would have then disturbed it. 86. She did not expect the act and so could not consent to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. It was an intimate part of her body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 87. In summary, the evidence supports the elements of Count 19. 88. Count 20 concerns RC. She appeared genuine in her evidence. Her affect was sad and quiet consistent with the experience she was recounting. She was open and unguarded but careful to be accurate in her responses. She was frank and insightful in explaining her conflicted attitude toward posing partially nude with the accused. She volunteered that she had seen another model at court for AVO proceedings and "made the connection", demonstrating candour. She made concessions where appropriate. She agreed she said nothing to him when he touched her. She continued to have contact with him afterwards. She arranged to attend further shoots in Facebook messages. [340] She agreed she did mention any issue with him in her messages. 89. Her account comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described the accused "going in for a hug", putting his right arm around her and then doing something with his left hand and her dress, and then when she grabbed the ties on the side of her bikini bottom, moving his right hand to her thigh and then his palm brushing along her "butt". But her evidence of the act itself was uncertain. She said she was "pretty sure" his hand touched her "butt" in the context of "fumbling around" trying to grab the side of her bikini. 90. Complaint evidence does not support her account of the act. She agreed she told a friend in a Facebook message that he was trying to grab the side of her bikini bottom as a joke but that was all, and that she did not tell her friend he had touched her bottom. [341] 91. The accused denied the act. But his account was incoherent. He acknowledged he "probably" gave her a hug, though he did not remember it, and he "would not" have touched her bottom. But then he said he definitely did not touch her bottom. [342] 92. She did not expect him to do it and so could not consent to it. She was emphatic in denying she consented to it. He must have realised she might not consent to it if he did it as he gave her no opportunity to do so. She was partially clothed at the time but it was an intimate part of her body. It was indecent in the circumstances. 93. In summary, the evidence does not support the elements of Count 20. This is not because of doubts as to the complainant's credibility but uncertainty as to the act and whether it was deliberate. 94. Counts 21 and 23 to 26 concern EP. She appeared genuine in her evidence. Her affect in recounting events was miserable, consistent with her experience. She was visibly distressed at a suggestion she had "fun" in it. She was frank and unhesitant in her account. She recounted that she went to the toilet to change a tampon before the shoot. But she took care to confirm when she could not remember events and to be as accurate as possible. She made concessions where appropriate. She agreed he told her in the car before the shoot he would not make her do anything that made her feel uncomfortable and that she did not have to do anything she did want to. She acknowledged it was her idea to use a ruler as a prop, and that she rubbed his penis when he asked, despite visible discomfort over it. 95. Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. She recounted that he agreed to pay her but told her not to tell anyone, as it would ruin his reputation and he had a wife. The accused expressed similar concerns about his reputation and his wife when police searched his studio. [343] 96. His account of the circumstances was implausible. He could not explain why he took photos of her genitals, saying he had "no idea". And his accounts were markedly inconsistent. During the police search, he expressed bewilderment at the suggestion anything sexual had happened, explaining that he "took it slowly" with her. He told police, "I can't think I touched her in any way". He suggested another photographer had a "far more out there day". [344] Yet in the statement he made for related court proceedings [345] , he acknowledged sexual acts had occurred, though he maintained she initiated it. And in evidence, he said things "definitely got out of hand". It is clear he tried to mislead police. He likely did so to avoid implication in the offences. But it is conceivable he did so for other reasons, such as concern that his wife would learn what had happened. It cannot then be used as evidence of his consciousness of guilt. But it is detrimental to his credibility. 97. She had contact with him afterwards. She agreed she asked for another shoot in Facebook messages. [346] But she explained she did not mean it and was only pretending to be "nice". 98. Complaint evidence strongly supports her account. She made several complaints soon afterwards. She did not disclose it all at once. But her incremental disclosure is consistent with her increasing anguish over what had occurred. The partner of the Central Coast photographer heard her crying when she was speaking on the phone. And when they met, she described her as sobbing and "white as a ghost". The evidence of her condition at the time of her complaints also strongly supports her account. 99. Her account of Count 21 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She recounted that he put a hand on top of her bra strap and pulled it down, then pinched her nipple with two fingers. [347] 100. The accused denied the act. But he confirmed her account in some respects. He told police during the search he had to adjust her top at one stage, though he maintained "that was it". [348] He asserted in his statement she could not do her bra strap so he said he would fix it and she said "ok". [349] And he acknowledged in evidence that he untwisted her bra strap. [350] 101. She said she did not expect the act, though it is unclear whether she was referring to her expectations when the shoot began or the act occurred. [351] It might have been thought she did not consent to it. But she said she agreed to allow him to do it. [352] She later explained she did not want him to do it but this does not vitiate consent. Complaint evidence suggests she did not consent to it. But the evidence does not demonstrate to the standard required she did not consent. 102. Her account of Count 23 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She described him grinding his crotch against hers [353] . Her account of their exchange had the ring of truth. She recounted that he told her he wanted to "fuck" her and she told him she had her period but he said "that's ok, I want to fuck you up the arse". She recounted that she told him, "It's wrong, and we shouldn't be doing this, and I just want to get back to the shoot". [354] Her account of the circumstances was consistent with other evidence. She recounted that she was lying on a red rug and the accused got on top of her in a "push up" position. Photos depict her lying on the red rug on her back. They appear to have been taken from a position immediately above her. The next photos were taken about two minutes later. The period accommodates the act consistently with her account. [355] 103. The accused denied the act. He claimed she was helping him change a backdrop during this period. [356] But his account of the circumstances was incoherent. In the statement prepared for court proceedings, she said she was wearing lingerie at the time [357] . In evidence he said initially that he believed she was naked but then equivocated about it. [358] 104. She said she did not expect it but again it was unclear whether she was referring to her expectations when the shoot commenced or the act occurred. [359] She said she agreed to allow him to do it as she wanted to be paid. [360] She explained she did not want him to do it. But again this does not vitiate consent. The evidence does not demonstrate to the standard required that she did not consent. 105. Her account of Count 24 comprised detail consistent with an experienced event. She recounted that he told her to get on all fours and to look straight ahead at the backdrop. She described feeling his fingers being inserted into her vagina. [361] Her account of the circumstances is consistent with other evidence. A photo taken immediately beforehand depicts her from the rear with her head down. [362] The next series of photos was taken about five minutes later. The period between them accommodates the act consistently with her account. 106. The accused denied the act. But his account of the circumstances was implausible. He acknowledged he probably told her pose on all fours with her head down but could not explain why he then took photos of her in this position from the rear. [363] 107. She complained about the act soon afterward. She told another photographer that he had touched her vagina and put his fingers inside her. 108. The evidence as to consent is again uncertain. She said she agreed to allow him to do it, as she wanted to be paid [364] , and then that she did not [365] . Complaint evidence suggests she did not consent to it. But the evidence does not demonstrate to the standard required that she did not consent. 109. Her account of Count 25 comprised detail with the ring of truth. She recounted that he hit her "arse" with a ruler seven times until she said "mercy", and then rubbed it against her vagina for a few seconds. [366] Her account of the circumstances is consistent with other evidence. The period between photos addressed already accommodates this act too, consistently with her account. 110. The accused denied the act. He expressed the "opinion" that he did not rub her genitals with the ruler. [367] He later denied that he did though he acknowledged he hesitated before he said this to make sure accurate. [368] 111. He confirmed her account in some respects. He acknowledged he smacked or "tapped" her bottom with a ruler, saying it was to make her bottom "pink" but then stopped this and "balanced" the ruler on her buttocks. [369] He was consistent in his assertions to police and in evidence that this did not "work". [370] 112. She complained about it soon afterwards. She told the other photographer that he had made her kneel and hit her "arse" with a ruler then ran it over genitals. [371] 113. She confirmed she did not consent or agree to this act. [372] But she acknowledged they had agreed to use "mercy" as a 'safe word' and that he ceased spanking her with the ruler when she said it. She also agreed he told her beforehand she did not have to do anything she did not want to do or felt uncomfortable about. [373] And she told the other photographer that she acted "the whole time" as if she was "fine" with what happened. She agreed she was smiling in photos but said it was only "fake smiling" as she wanted to be paid. The evidence does not demonstrated to the standard required that he did not appreciate she might not consent. 114. Her account of Count 26 comprised detail consistent with recollection of an experienced event. She recounted that she was facing the desk when he told her to close her eyes. She described feeling something going around her face that she realised was a blindfold. She described her hand being taken and his penis being placed in it. She recounted that she did not know what it was at first and that he told her to rub it and she did a few times. [374] Her account of the circumstances is consistent with other evidence. A photo taken from above depicts her on her knees wearing a blindfold with her hand outstretched and the tips of his shoes. [375] 115. She complained about the act shortly afterwards. She told the other photographer he told her to put her hand out then put his "dick" in it. [376] 116. The accused denied the act and gave an alternate account of the event. But his account was also implausible. He maintained that without anything to precipitate it such as discussion of payment for sex, she reached out while kneeling blindfolded and touched his upper leg and thigh, then unzipped his pants and performed oral sex on him until she said, "that'll do for now". [377] He suggested he was in shock at this though he clearly had the composure to take a photo at the time. [378] And his account was irreconcilable with suggestions he made to police during the search. 117. She said she did not expect the act. It might have been presumed she could not consent to it. But she said she agreed to allow him to do it as she wanted to be paid and needed photos. [379] She explained she did not want him to do it but this does not vitiate consent. [380] Complaint evidence suggests she did not consent to it. But again the evidence does not demonstrate to the standard required that she did not consent. 118. In summary, the evidence strongly supports the elements of Counts 21, 23, 24 and 26 except non-consent and the elements of Count 25 except knowledge of non-consent. 119. Now that my assessment of the evidence on individual counts has been addressed, observations concerning the accused's credibility generally should be noted. 120. As was just observed, he misled police during the search. This affected the credibility of his account of events with her but it has broader implications. His manner when he made his assertions to police was confident, assertive and forceful. It was the same when he was giving evidence. This impacts the credibility of his evidence generally. 121. He maintained that he had "never connected" the allegations of NS and EP that he put his penis in the hand of each while she was kneeling blindfolded until it was raised with him in cross examination. [381] Yet he was present throughout the trial when the admissibility of coincidence evidence, focussing on similarities in these allegations, was addressed and also when NS and EP recounted these allegations in detail. The implausibility of this assertion impacted his credibility generally too. 122. And as has been noted in addressing evidence on individual counts, he took many explicit photos of complainants, often close-ups of their genitalia. Yet he was either unable or unwilling to explain why, or if he did, the explanations were implausible. This impacted his credibility generally too. 123. The combined effect of these difficulties with his evidence, together with those noted in addressing individual counts, was that limited weight could be given to it. 124. I turn next to coincidence evidence. 125. Three pairs of counts were the subject of coincidence evidence. 126. The first pair comprises Counts 12 and 26. The evidence of NS and EP on these counts shares similarities. Each said that during a photo shoot with her he instructed her to kneel and wear a blindfold then told her to put out her hand and placed his penis in it. The explanation for these similarities is unlikely to be coincidence. Nor can it be concoction or contamination. NS and EP did not know each other. It may be that the accused had the state of mind alleged with both. But this is unnecessary to resolve. It is very likely he did the act alleged with both. The evidence strongly supports that he put his penis in the hand of each of these complainants. Their evidence taken together confirms he did act relied on for each of Counts 12 and 26. 127. The second pair comprises Counts 2 and 14. The evidence of NW and TM on these counts shares similarities. Each said he told her to come and look at photos he had taken of her while he sat at his computer. Each said he pulled her onto his lap. Each was naked at the time. The explanation for these similarities is unlikely to be coincidence. Nor can it be concoction or contamination. TM and NW did not know each other. It is likely the accused had the state of mind alleged with both, though this is not to the point. The explanation is very likely that he did pull each complainant onto his lap. Their evidence taken together confirms he did the act relied on for Count 2 and the act immediately connected with and proceeding that relied on for Count 14. 128. The third pair comprises Counts 1 and 21. The evidence of SF and EP on these counts shares similarities. Each said he approached her during a photo shoot and pinched her nipple. The explanation for these similarities is unlikely to be coincidence. Nor can it be concoction or contamination. SF and EP did not know each other. An explanation may be that the accused had the state of mind alleged with both, though again this is not to the point. The explanation is very likely that he did pinch the nipple of each. Their evidence taken together confirms he did the act relied on for each of Counts 1 and 21. 129. In summary, coincidence evidence confirms beyond reasonable doubt the accused did the act constituting each of Counts 1, 2, 12, 21 and 26 and an act immediately connected with that constituting Count 14. But coincidence evidence does not remove a reasonable doubt arising from deficiencies in the evidence on other elements of the alleged offence, as with consent on Counts 21 and 26 130. I turn lastly to tendency evidence. 131. Evidence was permitted to be used to prove that the accused had two tendencies to have particular states of mind, and to act on them in particular ways. The first was a tendency to have a desire to engage in sexual contact with female models, and to act on it by taking advantage in photo sessions to engage in sexual conduct with them. The second was a tendency to have a desire to exploit models during photo sessions for his own sexual gratification, and to act on it by taking advantage to have sexual contact with them. 132. Evidence of conduct on occasions not the subject of counts has not been used as tendency evidence, as it was not admitted for this purpose. Nor has evidence indicating he had the particular states of mind alleged but not that he acted on them. Tendency reasoning has been confined to evidence of conduct involving sexual contact with models. Tendency evidence was admitted only insofar as it directly affected facts in issue, which concern sexual or indecent acts. 133. Subject to these qualifications, the evidence of each complainant supports that the accused had the alleged tendencies, and this in turn supports that he committed the alleged acts against each other complainant. Tendency evidence thus removes any reasonable doubt as to whether he did the alleged act that might have subsisted when each complainant's evidence was regarded in isolation. As noted earlier, the essential issue on every count was whether he did the act alleged. A related issue raised on many counts is whether the complainant would have continued to have contact with him if he had. Tendency evidence removes any reasonable doubt arising from these issues, and confirms beyond reasonable doubt the accused did the acts constituting Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19. But it does not remove a reasonable doubt arising from uncertainty in the evidence of the alleged act itself, as with Counts 10 and 20. Nor does it entirely remove a reasonable doubt arising from a conflict in evidence on it, as with Counts 15 and 16. Nor does it remove a reasonable doubt arising from deficiencies in the evidence on other elements of the alleged offence, as with intention on Count 8, and as with consent or knowledge of the lack of it on Counts 21 and 23 to 26. 134. In conclusion, the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 but not those of Counts 8, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Findings 1. Accordingly, I make the following finding in respect of each count: * Count 1: Guilty * Count 2: Guilty * Count 3: Guilty * Count 4: Guilty * Count 5: Guilty * Count 7: Guilty * Count 8: Not Guilty * Count 9: Guilty * Count 10: Not Guilty * Count 11: Guilty * Count 12: Guilty * Count 13: Guilty * Count 14: Guilty * Count 15: Not Guilty * Count 16: Not Guilty * Count 17: Guilty * Count 18: Guilty * Count 19: Guilty * Count 20: Not Guilty * Count 21: Not Guilty * Count 23: Not Guilty * Count 24: Not Guilty * Count 25: Not Guilty * Count 26: Not Guilty ********** Endnotes 1. Ex A 2. Ex 1 3. T233.45-47; T234.1-3 4. T235.6-20 5. T236.15-31 6. T235.37-50 7. T236.5-9 8. T236.36-44 9. T898.11 – 20 10. T1002.6-12 11. T1002.14-46 12. T1002.48-1003.4 13. T272.1-25 14. T217.10-34 15. T278.16-30 16. T279.12-24 17. T277.50-278.6 18. T269.22-42 19. T291.3-12 20. T294.45-296.31 21. T291.26-35 22. T130; T135 23. T895.13-20 24. T144.28-29 25. T145.33-37 26. T146 27. T144.10-12 28. T892.40 – 893.5 29. T986.45-987.34 30. T145.6-14 31. T145.45-50 32. T146 33. T145.28-31 34. T893.7-13 35. T893.43-49 36. Ex A 6.08.13 #223-229 37. T987.36-988.49 38. T199.20 39. T169.49-170.33 40. T170.43-171.46 41. T156.24-37 42. T173.-5-14 43. T156.39-50 44. T172.33-173.34 45. T211.17-31 46. T209.21-36 47. T204.17-50 48. T205.21-22 49. T356-360 50. T418.26-28 51. T942.35-943.8 52. T964.16-965.24 53. T357.36-358.26 54. T360.17-24 55. T360.4-13 56. T967.36 57. T901.43-902.8 58. T955. 59. T361.44-362.26 60. T362.48-363.4 61. T364.12-23 62. T347 63. T348.16-35 64. T432 65. T427.25-29 66. T432.7-27 67. T419.37-420.9 68. T905.14-38 69. T906.5-18 70. T902-903 71. See Ex D pages 165; 167; T975.49-979.23 72. Ex D p 177; T979.32-38 73. T979.24-34 74. Ex D p 127 75. T410; T462 76. T555.1-39 77. T556.15-50 78. T564.39-565.14; T557.4-18 79. T565.9-11 80. T557.20-47 81. T560.7-9 82. T584.26-31 83. T583.3-40 84. T1026.11-1027.30 85. T1023.40-1024.14 86. T1026.11-1027.30 87. T1024-1025 88. T558.29-43 89. T558.45-47 90. T559.7-8 91. T1026.11-1027.30 92. T559.18 93. T559.18-37 94. T568.44-569.14 95. T582.40-43 96. T911.4-18 97. Ex A 15.05.13 #393-4; T1031 98. Ex J; Ex K 99. T575.4-20 100. T584.40-587.34 101. T591.50-592.9 102. T592.10-17 103. Ex A 22.11.15 #249, 250 104. T671.34-41 105. T915.1-26 106. T1045.22-1046.24 107. T1048.23-45 108. T915.31-916.7 109. Ex A 22.11.15 #154 110. Find ref. 111. T672.5-18 112. T917.22-50; T1051.9-27 113. T691.11-34 114. T715.1-716.22 115. T478.11-49 116. Ex F, p 24 117. T490.21-23 118. T908.26-36 119. T490.1-23 120. T479.22-40 121. T482.33-44 122. T491.17-492.29 123. T492.31-50 124. T908.26-36 125. T1005.47-1006.18 126. T1005.11-39 127. T504.17-36 128. T502.3-16 129. T501.11-25 130. T503 131. T501.39-47 132. T505.42-44 133. T505.10-16 134. T508.1-6 135. T485.12-22 136. T490.34-43 137. T502.18-38 138. T483.28-36; T484.43-485.7 139. Ex G 140. T493.16-494.19 141. T603.1-2 142. T603.5 143. T603.30-38 144. T604.5-31 145. T604.37-42 146. T604.44-605.8 147. T605.10-14 148. T605.19-37 149. T617 150. Ex A 26.07.16 #403, #404 151. T627.5-629.23 152. T605.43-606.11 153. T913.5-16 154. T1039.34-1040.16 155. T1041.11-40 156. T606.43-48 157. T637.19-25 158. T606.50-607.9 159. T652.25-653.1 160. T661.1-13 161. T659.5-9 162. T653.8-42 163. T619.24-45 164. 607.11-37 165. T623.26-624.29 166. T641.6-22 167. T643-4 168. T647.14-13 169. T650.3-10 170. T648.28-34 171. T841.45-842.43 172. T607.47-608.20 173. T629.38-630.2 174. Ex L 175. T636.37-46 176. T630.25-30 177. T631.11- 178. T521.22 179. T521.24-43 180. T520.30-521.1 181. TT521.13 182. T521.5-9 183. Ex A 20.11.16 #401, #402; T528.28-48 184. T543.20-48 185. T522.14-22 186. T909.4-17 187. T1014.48-1015.33 188. T1016.4-17 189. Ex H; T537.6-539.35 190. T531.13-14 191. T520.26-37 192. T726.15-20 193. T726.22-27 194. T726.22-27 195. T272.29-34 196. T726.36-50 197. T727.11-22 198. T919.1-49 199. T1052.46-1054.1 200. See Ex 1 201. T744.11-27 202. Ex O, Ex P 203. T730.44-50 204. MFI 25 205. T750.5-50 206. T767.12-22 207. T771.19-50 208. T773.50-774.8 209. T827.21-32 210. T815.7-13 211. T815.15-17 212. T815.26-28 213. T827.8-9 214. T921.19-49 215. T772.35- 216. T773.30-38; T827.14-19 217. T827.8-9 218. T815.19-21; 815.36-38 219. T924.32-49 220. T1086.1-14 221. T772.9-27 222. T773.40-48 223. T815.15-24 224. T827.1-9 225. T827.34-41 226. T924.13-30 227. T774.18-39 228. T775.8-9 229. T775.18-25; T810.42-50 230. T815.44-49 231. T828.4-7 232. T816.9-14 233. T922.26-38 234. T923.39-924.11 235. T775.34-43 236. T778.3-19 237. T776.45-777.2 238. T815.19-21; T815.33-34 239. T827.43-828.2 240. T817.23-818.21 241. T925.1-3 242. T922.38-923.23 243. T821.10-16 244. T821.11-30 245. T821.32 246. T778.24-37 247. T780.41-781.5 248. T806.33-40 249. T809.9-32 250. T809.38-810.29 251. T781.11-18 252. T845.1-846.7 253. T846.9-14 254. T781.27-31 255. T832.1-11 256. T832.31-33 257. T832.39-833.2 258. T834.4-7 259. Ex R 260. Ex Q 261. T1002.40 262. T278 263. T295 264. T123 265. E.g. T188.10 266. T224-5 267. T177.30 268. T997 269. T130; T135 270. T199.20 271. T148 272. Ex A 17.06.11 #512 273. Ex A 17.06.11 #512 274. T993 275. T 894; T989-90 276. T893.43-49 277. T895.13-20 278. T309 279. E.g. T334 280. Ex D p 127 281. T410; T462 282. E.g. T944; T947; T960 283. T964.35-6 284. E.g. Ex D p 144, p 146; Ex E p 87 285. Ex D p 172 286. T462 287. Ex D p 171-2 288. Ex D 289. Ex E, p 5 290. T584 291. T574 292. T1035 293. Exhibit A 15.05.13 #142-145 294. Ex A 15.05.13 #106; #179-180 295. T1024. 296. Ex A 15.05.13 #393 297. Ex A 15.05.13 #393-4; T1031 298. T1031 299. T695 300. T704 301. T715; Ex N p 23 302. T670. 303. Ex A 22.11.15 #247-9 304. Ex A 22.11.15 #250 305. T916; T1048 306. Ex A 22.11.15 #154 307. Ex A 22.11.15 #249 308. T1047-8 309. T917 310. T502 311. Ex G 312. T478 313. T908 314. T509-510 315. T505 316. T501-2, 4, 6-8 317. T477 318. T1005 319. T508 320. T620 321. T625 322. T631 323. T631 324. T641 325. T644 326. T623-T624 327. T604 328. T603 329. Ex A 26.07.16 #403 330. Ex A 26.07.16 #403, #404 331. T1037 332. T604 333. Ex H; T538- T539 334. Ex H; T541 335. T521.40 336. Ex A 20.11.16 #401-2 337. T521 338. T1017.25 339. Ex A 20.11.16 #460 340. Ex P pp25-27 341. T750 342. T918-T919; T1052 343. Ex R 344. Ex R 345. Ex Q 346. T821 347. T771 348. Ex R 349. Ex Q [20] 350. T921 351. T827 352. T845 353. T773 354. T772-3 355. Ex S #3487-3491 356. T927; T1081-2 357. Ex Q [30] 358. T1081-2 359. T827 360. T815 361. T772 362. Ex S #3290 363. T1067-8 364. T815 365. T827 366. T774-5 367. T1076 368. T1077 369. T923; T1074 370. Ex Q; Ex R 371. T845 372. T815 373. T817-8 374. T775 375. Ex S #3303 376. T845 377. T922 378. Ex S #3303 379. T815 380. T827-8 381. T1033 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 August 2020