District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v GM [2024] NSWDC 134 Hearing dates: 6 March 2024 – 11 April 2024 Date of orders: 26 April 2024 Decision date: 26 April 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Grant DCJ Decision: The accused, GM, is found not guilty of Counts 1 – 45 Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Child sex offences -Multiple Counts- Four Complainants-Verdict – Judge alone trial Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 The Queen v Bauer [2018] HCA 40 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex (Crown) GM (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Ms F Vella (Crown) Ms M Cusack (Accused) Solicitors: Ms K Palenzuela (Crown) Ms T Randall (Accused) File Number(s): 2021/00112985; 2021/00348381; 2022/00057816 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) and s 578A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material, that identifies, or is likely to lead to the identification of a complainant. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statutes. JUDGMENT 1. On 6 March 2024, the accused GM was arraigned before the Sydney District Court and pleaded "not guilty" to the following counts, namely, that he, 1. between 30 April 2008 and 26 December 2008, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault AR and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on AR, she being then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years of age, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 2. In the alternative to Count 1, between 30 April 2008 and 26 December 2008, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, committed an act of indecency with AR, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years of age, contrary to s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900; 3. between 30 April 2008 and 26 December 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with AR, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 or 7 years of age, contrary to s 66A Crimes Act 1900; 4. between 30 April 2008 and 26 December 2008, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with AR, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years of age, contrary to s 66A Crimes Act 1900; 5. between 31 March 2009 and 1 June 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault AR and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on AR, she being then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years of age, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 6. In the alternative to Count 5, between 31 March 2009 and 1 June 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, committed an act of indecency with AR, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 7 years of age, contrary to s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900; 7. between 1 April 2009 and 25 December 2009, at [redacted] or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, committed an act of indecency with AR, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 7 years of age, contrary to s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900; 8. between 31 March 2009 and 26 December 2009, at [redacted] or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, did assault AR and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on AR, she being then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years of age, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 9. between 31 March 2009 and 26 December 2009, at [redacted] or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, did assault AR and at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on AR, she being then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years of age, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 10. In the alternative to Count 9, between 1 April 2009 and 25 December 2009, at [redacted] or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, committed an act of indecency with AR, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 7 years of age, contrary to s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900; 11. between 1 December 2008 and 31 December 2008, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault LP, and at the time of such assault, did commit an act of indecency on LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 12. between 1 December 2008 and 31 December 2008, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years, contrary to s 66A Crimes Act 1900; 13. between 1 December 2008 and 31 December 2008, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 6 years, contrary to s 66A Crimes Act 1900; 14. between 1 December 2008 and 31 December 2008, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault LP, and at the time of such assault, did commit an act of indecency on LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 15. between 24 December 2008 and 6 January 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years, contrary to s 66A Crimes Act 1900; 16. between 24 December 2008 and 6 January 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years, contrary to s 66A Crimes Act 1900; 17. between 24 December 2008 and 6 January 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault LP, and at the time of such assault, did commit an act of indecency on LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years, s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 18. between 24 December 2008 and 6 January 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, committed an act of indecency towards LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 6 years, contrary to s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900. 19. between 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 6 years in circumstances of aggravation, namely, at the time LP was under the authority of GM, contrary to s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900; (amended on 11 April 2024) 20. In the alternative to Count 19, between 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 6 years, contrary to s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900; (amended on 11 April 2024) 21. between 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 6 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, at the time LP was under the authority of GM, contrary to s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900; (amended on 11 April 2024) 22. In the alternative to Count 21, between 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 6 years, contrary to s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900; (amended on 11 April 2024) 23. between 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did commit an act of indecency towards LP, then a child under the age of 10 years, namely, 6 years, contrary to s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900; (amended on 11 April 2024) 24. between 1 April 2009 and 19 November 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 7 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, at the time LP was under the authority of GM, contrary to s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900; (amended on 11 April 2024) 25. In the alternative to Count 24, between 1 April 2009 and 19 November 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 7 years, contrary to s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900; (amended on 11 April 2024) 26. between 31 October 2009 and 1 December 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 7 years in circumstances of aggravation, namely, at the time LP was under the authority of GM, contrary to s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900; 27. In the alternative to Count 26, between 31 October 2009 and 1 December 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 7 years, contrary to s 66A(1) Crimes Act 1900; 28. between 31 October 2009 and 1 December 2009, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did attempt to have sexual intercourse LP, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 7 years, contrary to s 66B Crimes Act 1900; 29. between 18 April 2009 and 19 April 2010, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault BF and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on BF, a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 30. between 18 April 2009 and 19 April 2010, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault BF and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on BF, a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 31. between 18 April 2009 and 19 April 2010, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault BF and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on BF, a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 32. between 18 April 2009 and 19 April 2010, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault BF and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on BF, a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 33. between 18 April 2009 and 19 April 2010, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault BF and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on BF, a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, 7 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 34. between 19 April 2011 and 18 April 2013, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with BF without the consent of BF, knowing she was not consenting and in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence BF was under the age of 16 years, namely, aged between 9 and 10 years, contrary to s 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900; 35. In the alternative to Count 35, between 19 April 2011 and 18 April 2013, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with BF, a child then above the age of 10 years and under 14 years, namely between 9 and 10 years, contrary to s 66C(1) Crimes Act 1900; 36. between 25 May 2010 and 4 February 2014, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault BF and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on BF, a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, between the ages of 8 to 11 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 37. between 18 April 2009 and 4 February 2014, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with BF without the consent of BF, knowing she was not consenting and in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence BF was under the age of 16 years, namely, aged between 6 and 11 years, contrary to s 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900; 38. In the alternative to Count 37, between 18 April 2009 and 4 February 2014, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with BF, a child then above the age of 10 years and under 14 years, namely between 6 and 11 years, contrary to s 66C(1) Crimes Act 1900; 39. between 14 March 2012 and 15 March 2017, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault MC and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency in the presence of MC a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, between 9 and 14 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; 40. between 14 March 2012 and 15 March 2017, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did commit an act of indecency towards MC, a person under the age of 16 years, namely, between 9 and 14 years, contrary to s 61N(1) Crimes Act 1900; 41. between 14 March 2012 and 14 March 2016, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did commit an act of indecency towards MC, a person under the age of 16 years, namely, between 9 and 13 years, contrary to s 61N(1) Crimes Act 1900; 42. between 1 January 2014 and 31 January 2015, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, used a carriage service, namely, 'Snapchat' to transmit a communication to MC, and the communication included indecent material, and at the time the accused was over the age of 18 years and MC was under 16 years of age, namely between 10 to 11 years, contrary to s 474.27A(1) Criminal Code; 43. between 14 March 2014 and 15 March 2017, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did assault MC and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on MC a child then under the age of 16 years, namely, between 11 and 14 years, contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; (amended 26 March 2024) 44. between 14 March 2014 and 15 March 2017, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with MC without the consent of MC, knowing she was not consenting, and in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence MC was under the age of 16 years, namely, between 11 and 14 years, contrary to s 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900; (amended 26 March 2024) and; 45. In the alternative to Count 44, between 14 March 2014 and 13 March 2017, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with MC, a child then above 10 years and under 14 years, namely, between 11 and 13 years, contrary to s 66C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (amended 26 March 2024). General Directions 1. In accordance with s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), and as required by the decision of the High Court in Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250, I remind myself of the following principles of law: 1. A Judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury on the question of the guilt of the accused person. Any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of a jury. 2. A judgment by a Judge in any such case must include the principles of law applied by the Judge and the findings of fact on which the Judge relied. 3. If any Act or law requires a warning to be given to a jury in any such case, the Judge is to take the warning into account in dealing with the matter. 1. I remind myself of the requirement to state findings on the main grounds critical to the contest between the parties and on which the verdict rests. In this trial, the critical issue is whether the complainants were accurate and reliable witnesses. 2. In my role as the judge of facts, I am able to draw inferences from the direct evidence from experiences had in my own life. Inferences may be valid or invalid, justified or unjustified, correct or incorrect. Noting the requirement to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, there is an additional requirement, among other things, to be extremely careful about drawing any inference. Any possible inference will be examined to ensure that it is a justifiable and rational inference in the circumstances. 3. I now direct myself to the burden of proof of the guilt of the accused. To prove the accused guilty of each count, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offence in each count. That burden is placed squarely on the Crown and is in respect of every element or essential fact that makes up the offence charged. There is no stage where that burden is shifted to the accused to prove any fact or issue that is in dispute. 4. Beyond reasonable doubt are ordinary words that carry their everyday meaning, and that is how I understand them. If, at the end of my deliberations after considering the evidence and submissions made by the parties, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to any one or more of the elements for a particular count, a verdict of not guilty must be returned. 5. I direct myself to the presumption of innocence. The accused is presumed innocent unless the Crown satisfies me that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has no onus of proving anything. I do not act on suspicion. I do not act on what I believe might probably be the case. I can only return a guilty verdict if I am satisfied the prosecution has proved each critical element of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet that high onus, if I have doubts about their case on a count, the accused must have the benefit of any reasonable doubt and I must return a verdict of not guilty on that count. 7. The accused gave evidence in this trial. He did not have to do that as he bears no onus, but the fact that he gave evidence does not alter the burden of proof. The Crown must prove the necessary elements of each offence and prove them beyond reasonable doubt. I will treat his evidence the same way as I treat the evidence of other witnesses. I can accept part of it and reject part of it. 8. Giving separate consideration to the individual counts means that I am entitled to bring in verdicts of guilty on some counts and not guilty on other counts if there is a reason in the evidence for that outcome. If I entertain a reasonable doubt concerning the truthfulness or reliability of a complainant's evidence in relation to one or more counts, that doubt must be taken into account in assessing the truthfulness or reliability of the complainant's evidence generally and when deciding whether or not there was a reasonable doubt about their evidence with respect to other counts. 9. As the prosecution depends on the accuracy and reliability of each complainant, I must carefully consider what each said and how it relates to the other evidence. 10. It would be wrong of me to conclude that the complainants are telling the truth because there is no apparent reason, in my view, for them to lie. People lie for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it is apparent. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes the reason is discovered. Sometimes it is not. I cannot be satisfied that the complainants are telling the truth merely because there is no reason for them to have made up these allegations. There might be a reason for them to be untruthful that nobody knows about. 11. I direct myself in accordance with s 293A and s 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Elements Counts 1,5,8,9,11,14,17,29,30,31,32,33,36,39, and 43: Indecent assault person under the age of 16 years, s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt three elements: 1. The accused assaulted the complainant named in the respective count; and, 2. at the time of that assault committed an act of indecency on the complainant named in the respective count; and 3. the complainant named in the respective count was under the age of 16 years. Counts 2,6,7 and 10: committing act of indecency with another person under 10, s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt two elements: 1. The accused committed an act that involved the complainant named in the respective count (AR) and that act was indecent; and 2. that AR was under the age of 10 years. Counts 18 and 23: committing act of indecency towards another person under 10, s 61O(2) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt two elements: 1. The accused did an act directed towards the complainant named in the respective count (LP) and that act was indecent; and 2. That LP was under the age of 10 years. Counts 3, 4, 12,13, 15,16, 20,22,25 and 27: sexual intercourse with child under 10, s66A/s66A(1) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt two elements: 1. The accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant named in the respective count; and, 2. that the complainant named in the respective count was under the age of 10 years. Counts 19,21, 24 and 26: aggravated sexual intercourse with child under 10 under authority, s 66A(2) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt three elements: 1. The accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant named in the respective count; and 2. that the complainant named in the respective count was under the age of 10 years; and 3. that the complainant named in the respective count was under the authority of the accused at the time. To establish this, the Crown must prove the complainant was under his care, supervision or authority [whether generally or at the time of the offence]. Count 28: sexual intercourse with child under 10, s 66B Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt two elements: 1. The accused attempted to have sexual intercourse with the complainant LP; and 2. that the complainant LP was under the age of 10 years. Counts 34,37 and 44: aggravated sexual assault, complainant under the age of 16, s 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt four elements: 1. The accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant named in the respective count; and 2. that the sexual intercourse occurred without the consent of the complainant named in the respective count; and 3. that the accused knew or was reckless as to the lack of consent of the complainant named in the respective count, and 4. that the complainant named in the respective count was under the age of 16. Counts 40 and 41: commit act of indecency towards a person under the age of 16, s 61N(1) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt two elements: 1. The accused committed an act of indecency towards the complainant named in the respective count; and 2. the complainant named in the respective count was under the age of 16 years. Counts 35,38 and 45: sexual intercourse with a person between the age of 10 and 14, s 66C(1) Crimes Act 1900 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt two elements: 1. The accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant named in the respective count; and 2. the complainant named in the respective count was then between the ages of 10 and 14 years. Count 42: adult use carriage service to communicate indecent material to a person under 16, S 474.27A(1) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) 1. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt four elements: 1. The accused used a carriage service to transmit a communication to MC; and 2. that communication included indecent material; and 3. the accused was aged over 18; and 4. the recipient is someone who is, or the sender believes to be, under 16 years of age. Indecent means indecent according to the standards of ordinary people For the purposes of an offence against this Subdivision, absolute liability applies to the physical element of circumstance of the offence that: the recipient is someone who is under 16 years of age. DEFENCES Offences involving transmission of communication—belief that certain persons at least 16 years of age. (1) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 474.26, 474.27 or 474.27A if the defendant proves that, at the time the communication was transmitted, he or she believed that the recipient was at least 16 years of age. Note: A defendant bears a legal burden in relation to the matter in this subsection, see section 13.4. 13.4 A legal burden of proof on the defendant must be discharged on the balance of probabilities. Agreed facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) 1. For the purposes of these criminal proceedings, the accused, upon the advice of his lawyer, and the Crown have agreed upon the following facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW): 1. The accused's daughter is AM, born 12 June 2002. 2. In 2008, AM was a kindergarten student at [the local public school]. 3. In 2015, she moved to [the local public high school] for year 7 and attended there until the end of 2017. AR 1. In January 2008, AR's family purchased a house at [redacted address]. 2. The family renovated the property and then moved into the house in May 2008. At the time, the accused was residing next door to AR's house, with his wife, KG, and his daughter AM. 3. While AR's family were completing their renovations, they became friends with the accused and his wife, KG, and AR became friends with the accused's daughter, AM. 4. In 2008, AM, AR and LP were in the same combined Kindy/Year 1 class at [the local public school]. AR was in year 1, while AM and LP were in kindergarten. 5. At the end of 2009 just before Christmas, AR's family and the accused's family had a major falling out. AR never went back to the accused's home after that. LP 1. In late 2008, LP was a kindergarten student at [the local public school] after moving schools from [another school]. 2. In early 2011, LP started year 3 at a [different school] after she moved from [the local public school] at the end of year 2. BF 1. The complainant's mother, KF/KS, and the accused's wife, KG, had been close friends since they were 17 years old. In 2002, both KF/KS and KG were pregnant with their daughters at the same time. 2. BF, KF/KS, and her other children frequently socialised at the accused's home on weekends and the families took holidays together. 3. In 2009, BF was in year 2 at [a different school to the local public school]. She was 7 years old. MC 1. In 2008, MC was a kindergarten student at [the local public school]. 2. From 13 October 2008 until 27 April 2012, MC attended the [local public school]. 3. In April 2012, she moved to [another public school]. 4. In 2015, MC commenced at [the local high school], as did AM. TB 1. In 2016 TB's father GB became aware of a Snapchat image sent to his daughter by the accused. 2. On 19 June 2017, GB was a participant in a meeting about the Snapchat message at [the local high school] with the then school principal and police officer Ashley Underhill who was stationed in their town at the time. 3. Officer Underhill noted that the incident was said to be at the end of school in 2016 and involved the accused sending a Snapchat post displaying an image of a penis to a group on Snapchat of which TB was a participant. TB told her mother shortly after. 4. At the time TB and her family did not want any further action taken and no statement was obtained. 5. It was indicated to Officer Underhill that the picture had been deleted due to the nature of the Snapchat application. 6. TB had no further contact with the accused subsequent to receiving the Snapchat post. Accused 1. The accused resided at [redacted address] with his wife, KG and his daughter from around 2005. The accused and KG also had another daughter, SM, born 26 May 2010. 2. On 31 March 2009, there was significant flooding in their region. Both the accused's property and AR's family were located on the river in this region. 3. The accused's house was affected by the floodwaters, causing him and his family to move out temporarily to accommodation near the local golf club. 4. In 2017, the accused's residence at [redacted], burned down. 5. Shortly after, the accused and his family moved to Gold Coast. 6. The accused's mobile phone number was [redacted] from 2015 until the time of his arrest in 2021. Arrest 1. On 22 April 2021, the accused was served with a court attendance notice in relation to the allegations made by AR. 2. On 12 December 2021, the accused was arrested at his home in Queensland on an extradition warrant in relation to the allegations made by LP. He was bail refused at the Southport Magistrates Court and was extradited to NSW. THE CROWN CASE Evidence of AR 1. AR was born on 24 January 2002 and was 22 at the time she gave evidence in the trial. In 2007 she commenced at [the local public school]. She lived with her father, mother, older sister and brother. The family renovated their house before moving in. The accused lived next door. AR knew the accused's daughter from school and would stay at her house before and after school. The accused would drive AR and his daughter to and from school. She would sit in the front seat. 2. One day, while at the accused's house, he put the TV on. He then took her into his room. He began to touch her and got her to touch his penis. He got her hand and placed it on his penis. The accused's daughter was still watching TV. After refreshing her memory from paragraph 7 of her statement dated 27 July 2020, she said that his penis was erect; (Count 1 and the alternative Count 2). 3. On another occasion, AR was sleeping over the accused's house. She was asleep with AM in her bed. She woke up and the accused was between her legs. His head was in her genitals. He had his mouth on her vagina. He was moving his tongue around in her vagina. She rolled over and pretended she was asleep. AM remained asleep; (Count 4). 4. After refreshing her memory from paragraph 8 of her statement, she gave evidence that on one occasion she went to the accused's bedroom. He touched her vagina on the bed. She did not recall what she was wearing. The accused removed her clothing. He tried to put his fingers in her vagina. She felt pain. His fingers were inside her vagina. She said stop. He stopped. She felt sore (Count 3). 5. AR recalled there was a flood on 31 March 2009. The accused and his family had to move out of their house because of the floods and go to alternate accommodation. At this new accommodation, on a weekday, she was playing in the living room with AM when the accused asked AR to go into the shower. He was outside the bathroom. She went to the bathroom, and he asked her to wash him. She washed his penis using her hand. His penis was erect; (Count 5 and the alternative Count 6). 6. Before the floods the accused's family went away twice. The first time was a family trip to the Gold Coast. Her family was staying in a different hotel to the accused. On the first night she stayed with the accused, his wife and AM at their accommodation. AR and AM slept on separate single beds. AR woke up to a vibrating sensation on her vagina. She saw the accused kneeling next to her bed. It was a vibrator. It was small, the size of a lip balm. She was wearing pyjamas and undies. The vibrator was inside her underpants. She took it out of her undies. The accused took it off her and left the room. This is context evidence. 7. She stayed the next night with her parents at their accommodation. 8. There was a second trip to the south of their town. The accused, his wife, AM, her brother and other adults and children from the accused's family went. She remembers staying in a cabin with other kids, including AM. It had bunk beds. She gave evidence that the accused woke her up and took her out of the cabin. She was not sure what happened. After refreshing her memory from her statement, she recalled the accused touched her vagina below her clothing and got her to touch him on the outside of his clothing. She could feel his penis. This happened outside; (Count 7 and the alternative Count 8). 9. There was an outdoor spa. She was in the spa with the accused and AM. It was daytime. The accused put her hand on his board shorts. She felt his erect penis. She tried to act normal because AM was in the spa. She did not want anyone to know she was embarrassed. Later on, the accused told her, "not to tell anyone and I would hate him when older"; (Count 9 and the alternative Count 10). 10. In 2009, AR and AM were in the shower. The accused asked them to get out. They did not. He got angry. He took AR out of the shower and told her she was a spoilt brat. She walked home crying. AR told her parents what happened in the shower. They (her parents) went over to talk to the accused. When they returned, they said she would not go over there again, and she did not. 11. The first person she told was her boyfriend, TC, in 2018. She was 16. She told him briefly, "things happened when I was little with my next-door neighbour". 12. She told her sister, LR in more detail when she was 17. LR picked AR up from their parents' house and told her about some of the incidents. They discussed it briefly at her sister's house. It was more about how to tell her parents. They drove back to her parents. She went into her room and LR told her parents in the lounge room. Her parents came into her room, said sorry and her dad gave her a hug. She said it was not their fault. She says they did not speak about what happened to her in her room. It was only sometime after that her parents asked little bits about what happened. 13. She decided to go to the police, and tried, but she was not ready. She made a statement on 27 July 2020. She has made two further statements. 14. She gave evidence regarding a pretext call (Exhibit 2, 29 January 2021) and 22 pages of Snapchat messages (Exhibit 3) with the accused. No admissions were made by the accused in the pretext call. 15. At page 11 of Exhibit 3, the accused says: "I have a lot of answers for you if we can get you to come up here at some point, I'll pay for everything of course." She responded, "I don't think I'd be comfortable to do that. I'm struggling now as it is, I just want to move on and get over it. Can you just tell me why you did it?" The accused said, "sorry like I said I'm not sure who I'm even speaking to ATM and there's legality issues if it will be more comfortable for you I can have them contact you and get that part of it sorted [emoji] again I have no animosity towards anyone especially you [emoji] the legals will supply you with a sum of money and a form to sign and this is a new account hence my saying I'm not sure who I'm talking to [emoji] but like I said only want to help you [emoji] ." 1. AR then sent the accused a photograph of herself. He opened the photograph and responded: "I understand you want to clear things up and hopefully I can put something in place to clear it all up for you [emoji] nice pic [emoji]." He went on to say "can't clear it up until the other parts sorted [emoji] sorry but have faith the future looks brighter. Oh eyebrows are on point [emoji]." The accused in his next message says, "the money is just a helping hand, and the signature is so I can give you all the answers your after [emoji] like I said no animosity here just want to help and hopefully [emoji] we can all move forward." Cross-examination by Ms Cusack 1. She said that AM was a diabetic and either her mother or father tested her during the daytime. AR said she was not aware of KG testing AM at night time. AM was in kindergarten, and she was in year one. 2. She was dropped off at the accused's house most mornings and would be taken back to their house from school most afternoons but not all afternoons. She specifically remembered some instances of the accused taking her to his room and asking her to touch him, not just general recollections or a jumble of incidents. She agreed AM has a big princess bed positioned flush to the wall. AM would always sleep on the outside of the bed. 3. She confirmed that she went away twice with the accused's family. Once to the Gold Coast and the second occasion was somewhere south of where they lived. On the second occasion she stayed in a room with bunk beds. The accused's sister was there with her foster children. She agreed with Ms Cusack that she could not remember anything happening in the cabin and that it was "jumping up and very disorientated," and agreed that her memory was refreshed by her statement. She repeated that she had been woken up from sleep and touched on the genital region outside the cabin. In cross-examination AR initially repeated her evidence that the touching occurred outside the cabin. She then said she remembered telling police she was taken from the cabin to another room, and that was where the touching happened. 4. She remembered LP and BF being at the accused's house, but she did not stay overnight when they were there. 5. She was asked about the Gold Coast trip. She said that she went there but was unsure what the occasion was for. She agreed her parents were staying at a different hotel but on the first night of the trip, she stayed with the accused's family. It was put to her that she went there twice in that year, 2009. She disagreed. She did not recall going to the Gold Coast a second time, without her parents, with BF and the accused's family, including AM. She could not recall going to Sea World or seeing LP on this trip. 6. She was shown a number of photographs (Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F) and it was put to her that she went to the Gold Coast for a four-day holiday in October 2009 without her parents. She did not recall that happening. She was shown a photograph with her on a toy penguin. She maintained she did not have any recollection of the trip. She did not remember a trip without her parents. When asked why she could not remember this second trip, she said, "well, it's a big thing when something happens to you one of the trips. And that's the only trip I can remember." 7. She was asked about her contact with LP. She said that she saw her in passing in their town and said hello but did not speak about what happened and denied discussing the case at all. She said she has had no contact with LP in the period after she disclosed the allegations to her parents and sister and before making her statement. 8. She denied being spoken to by her parents about bullying AM, the accused's daughter. She denied being spoken to about telling other kids at school that AM was wearing pullups. She denied spreading the rumour that AM was wearing pullups. She told the parents that she was not saying that. She said, "I don't even believe she was wearing a pull-up. I'm unsure about where that even came from." 9. When asked about BF and LP having sleepovers around the same time frame as her, she said she remembered them being there sometimes, but did not recall them there when the 'incidents' occurred. 10. It was put to her that the spa was not working because the previous guests did something to it, and it needed to be cleaned out. She said, "no. I don't remember that, because I remember myself in the spa." 11. She was asked why she forgot one of the incidents when she gave evidence earlier. She said, "well, when you're sitting in this room, talking about something that's very emotional, it's hard to remember everything." She went on to say, "it's very stressful in this situation. I'm not going to remember every fine detail." 12. When Ms Cusack put to her that it appeared that she was using the floods as a timeline to remember the events, she conceded, "I'm just putting it in a timeframe because I don't remember the exact dates." 13. It was put to her that she complained to her boyfriend, TC in circumstances where they were at a party, and he was hanging around with his mates and not paying any attention to her. She said that they were not at a party, and she only told him briefly about what happened. The same year that she told her sister, LR. Initially she did not want the police to contact TC because she felt very uncomfortable about the situation. 14. AR said she did not tell her parents about what the accused was doing to her even after she told them about the shower incident, because she was very scared of what would happen. She said it is a very hard thing to tell your parents. She was asked about the delay in complaining to her sister, and said it was because she was petrified and scared. 15. In re-examination, AR said that she remembered going outside the cabin, and going into a room and she assumed that it was the accused's family's cabin. In that room, the accused touched her on the vagina and made her touch him on his genitals. She was asked why it was that she did not tell her parents. She responded, "because it's embarrassing, and I don't want to hurt their feelings." She said she did not tell her sister for the same reason. Evidence of LP 1. LP was born on 24 February 2002 (agreed facts) and was 21 at the time she gave evidence in the trial. When she was 6, in 2008, she was in kindergarten at [the local public school]. She lived at [redacted]. She left [the local public school] at the end of year 2 and moved to [another school] for year 3. When she was at [the local public school], she was in class with the accused's daughter, AM. AR was in year 1, but was in their same composite class. LP became close with AM. They hung out during class, lunch and recess, but did not hang out outside of school until the end of kindergarten. 2. When they started to hang out outside of school, it would consist of LP's mum or dad dropping her off at AM's house. AM was a diabetic and could not come over to LP's house. They may have had play dates in the morning, and she would leave in the afternoon. She said that in the school holidays, just before Christmas of 2008, she started staying overnight at AM's house – either on a Friday or Saturday night. LP saw AM's mother and father as having a guardian role over her when she stayed at their house. They would act as her mother and father, giving her food, or medicine if she needed it. 3. At AM's house, there was a game room with a Wii console that they would play with a lot. They would also spend time in the garden, on the boat and fishing on the boat. Her, AM, and the accused would be on the boat. 2008 Christmas holidays 1. She recalled being at the accused's house in the 2008 Christmas holidays, and the accused watching a football rematch at a bar they had outside. Her and AM were sitting in the lounge room watching a movie, and then they went to sleep in AM's room. LP drew a diagram of AM's room which became Exhibit 4. AM had a double bed. She gave evidence that it was in 2008, before Christmas, that the first incident occurred. 2. She remembers it happened before Christmas of 2008 because afterwards, she went to the accused's house for Christmas, which was in the middle of the week, with her mum, dad and brother, BP. Her family left but she stayed at the accused's house. She remembered being asleep in bed with AM. She was wearing a nightie dress and underwear. She woke up to the accused pretty much lying on top of her right up near her shoulder. His whole body was on one of her legs. He started to pull down her underwear. She asked him not to and tried to pull her underwear back up. He told her "I don't know how you sleep with your underwear on it's unhealthy." 3. He then started inserting his fingers in and out of her vagina, which caused quite a level of discomfort, and kissing her on the neck area, including her chin and cheek. She does not know what was happening when he was inserting his finger in and out of her vagina; (Count 11 and the alternative Count 12). He then pulled down her underwear to her knees, went down and used his tongue on her vagina. He licked and stroked her vagina with his tongue; (Count 13). He then stood up and undid the laces on his shorts which she says were of a board short type material. She said that "his penis was, hard, like, erect." He used his penis to rub the outside of her vagina; (Count 14). She tried to wake AM up and started to cry. The accused got up and said, "please don't cry this is normal for boys and girls." He then did the laces on his shorts, she pulled her pants up, and he kissed her and AM on the lips and then left. 4. The following morning, AM's mother came and took AM outside the room to do her daily blood sugar test. The accused came into the room and told her not to tell anyone about this, because "you won't have a mum and dad." She did not say anything to her parents because she was afraid that she would lose her mum and dad, because of what the accused said. Weekend after 2008 Christmas holidays 1. The second incident occurred when she was staying overnight at AM's house. Her and AM played, swam in the pool and then did their usual night time routine, which was showering, having dinner, and then going to bed. She slept on the wall side of AM's bed. She woke up to the accused on top of her. He pulled her underwear down to her knees and inserted 2 or 3 fingers in her vagina, moving them in and out; (Count 15) He then licked her vagina for what felt like 3-5 minutes; (Count 16). He pulled down his shorts, took out his penis and started rubbing it on the outside of her vagina; (Count 17). She said he only ever pulled down his pants enough to take his penis out. He then knelt on the end of the bed and rubbed his penis back and forth. He ejaculated into a towel that he brought with him. She saw a liquid like substance come out of his penis that night, which went into the towel; (Count 18). She tried to wake AM by tapping her shoulder, but the accused would grab her arm and put it back to her side. He eventually got up went back to his room. 2. She saw AM take a tablet before bed at night. 3. When she was staying overnight at AM's house, sometimes BF was also sleeping over. When they were both sleeping over, either LP or BF would sleep on a single bed that was pulled out from under AM's bed. LP says none of the incidents involving her occurred when BF was in AM's room. After the floods in March 2009 1. After the floods which took place between 31 March and 1 April 2009, the accused's family had to stay at cabins at the local golf club. Sometimes she stayed overnight at the cabins and she would go over for play dates. Sleepover for AM's birthday in 2009 1. She believed AM's family moved back to their house just before AM's birthday in 2009, which she believed to be in July. She remembers celebrating AM's birthday that year by sleeping over at AM's house on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night. AM had asked her to stay. Her mother dropped her off at school on Thursday. The accused and KG picked her up from school and took her to their house. There, they swam, went up the river, checked on some crab pots and found some crabs which they ate for dinner. LP could not eat the crab because of her shellfish allergy, which made the accused agitated and angry. LP and AM were sent to bed early. 2. On Friday morning, KG packed lunch for her and AM. She remembered there was a sandwich, box of juice, packet of chips and muesli bar. She did not eat all her lunch because she was not hungry. When the accused picked AM and LP up from school, AM told him LP did not eat all her lunch. LP said she was not hungry. The accused said something to the effect that he would deal with LP later. When they got home, they played and swam in the pool and then went to sleep in AM's bed. LP woke up to the accused crawling onto the bed. He tried pulling her underwear down. She tried to pull it back up, but he told her to stop being disrespectful. She felt scared. The accused inserted 3 or 4 fingers in her vagina; (Count 24 and the alternative Count 25). She felt quite a bit of pain and discomfort. She told him to please stop or that she did not like it. He did not respond. She told him that it was hurting her. He did not stop or reply. She says that this went on for about 5 minutes. Then the accused got up, told her that she will learn not to be disrespectful or rude, and left. She was crying and distressed. She pulled her underwear back up. The next morning, she felt quite a bit of pain and felt a burning or stinging pain when she urinated. 3. Saturday was AM's birthday party. She recalled there was a number of kids from school, including AR and BF. She was one of the last kids to leave. Her parents picked her up. LP did not speak to the accused. Gold coast trip 1. LP remembered going to Queensland with her mum, dad, brother and the accused's family in the first week of October. She recalls only one trip to the Gold Coast. She recalls KG, AR and BF also being there. LP's family was staying in a different hotel to AM's family. AR and BF were staying with AM's family (cf AR's evidence that AR's family were in their own hotel – and she only stayed the first night with the AM). She recalls going to Sea World and the Australian Zoo twice with AM's family and then going to Movie World only with her family. LP provided a bundle of photographs of this trip which became Exhibit 5. LP said she got these photos from her mother and father's computer by saving them on a hard drive and giving them to Detective Wallace. 2. LP's mother and KG would take photos and exchange photos via text messages, post photos and share each other's photos on Facebook. November 2009 – last time sleeping over at accused's house 1. She recalls an incident occurring on a Saturday in November 2009, before her mother's birthday on 19 November. LP gave evidence her father dropped her off on his motorbike to the accused's house. She felt motion sickness after this ride and was still sick at dinner. She and BF were staying overnight. Her, BF and BF's two brothers were watching a movie in the loungeroom. 2. Because there was not much room, the accused set up a blowup mattress in the middle of the loungeroom. LP and the accused were lying together on the blowup mattress watching a movie, and everyone else was on the large L-shaped lounge. She says she fell asleep and remembered waking up to the accused standing next to the mattress, taking his pants off. He pulled her shorts and underwear down to her ankles and pushed her legs apart forcefully with his hands. His penis touched the outside of her vagina; (Count 28). He was holding it and trying to put it in her vagina. He did not insert it into her vagina. She told him to stop and that she felt sick. A light came on down the hallway and the accused jumped off the mattress, put his clothes back on and walked away. 3. She thought he went to the ensuite bathroom in his and KG's bedroom. She pulled her underwear and pants back up and went to KG's room. She told KG she was sick and wanted to go home. KG asked her why and she said she felt like she was going to spew. KG contacted LP's mother. LP's mother and father came to pick her up and took her home. She says she spewed all through the back of the car. She does not recall sleeping over at AM's house after this incident. January 2010 1. She recalled spending a day at the accused's house after her biological father, who was living in Darwin, died in January 2010. She says at some stage that day, her and the accused were in AM's bedroom alone and the accused told her she no longer had a dad to protect her. Complaint 1. The first person LP told about the allegations was her mother, in October 2021. Her mother called her while she was on a break at work and asked when her next day off would be. She asked why, and her mother told her that two detectives needed to talk to her. When she asked why, her mother said it was in relation to the accused. She asked what about the accused. Her mother said she could not say. LP began to cry and told her mother that she had let her mother and father down and her mother would be disappointed in her, because they were very close and used to talk about everything. She believes her mother asked her if the accused ever did anything with his penis and she responded "no." When she got home, they did not speak about details, and she just gave her mum a hug. They said they were there for her, and her mother told her the detective, Amanda, needed to organise a day for LP to come in. She did not speak to anyone else about the incidents before she made her statement on 27 October 2021. She had a support person present when she made her statement. After Christmas 2008 and before the floods in March 2009 – BF present during incidents involving LP 1. LP later gave evidence that she did remember BF being present during one of the incidents. She remembers sleeping on a single bed on the floor of AM's room after Christmas and before the floods. BF and AM were sleeping on AM's bed. She woke up to the accused on top of her. He kissed her neck and then inserted his fingers in and out her vagina; (Count 19 and the alternative Count 20). He then used his tongue on her vagina; (Count 21 and the alternative Count 22). He then got up and left, but then after refreshing her memory from her statement, her evidence was that the accused got up, rubbed his penis back and forth with his own hand and ejaculated into a tissue that he got from AM's beside table; (Count 23). 2. LP also recalled an occasion where the accused smacked her on the bottom. Someone had clogged the toilet that night. The accused came over, grabbed her arm, dragged her into the main bathroom and told her that this was her fault. He turned her around, smacked her on the bottom and told her to go back to AM. This is uncharged context evidence. Cross-examination of LP 1. LP was asked about the pictures from the Gold Coast trip (Exhibit 5). She agreed AR was in each of the pictures, and that AR was staying with the accused when they were at the Gold Coast. 2. Regarding the photographs on her mother's computer, she agreed there were thousands. Her mother has different folders for each iPhone backed up on the computer – iPhone 1 and iPhone 2. It was difficult to find them. Her evidence was that on the first day of making her statement, 26 October 2021, which took two days to make, she told Amanda (Detective Wallace) that she had school photos and photos from the holiday, and Amanda told her to bring them in the next day, and she did. She denied the suggestion that she gave the photos to Detective Wallace on the first day of the statement. 3. She was then shown Exhibit 5 and taken to the first photograph which was taken on or about 28 March 2009, which she said in her statement had been taken after she stayed in the accused's golf club cabin. It was put to her that the flood occurred on 31 March 2009, so she could not have been at the cabin. She agreed. 4. She said what she told police about staying at the cabin more than once was correct, and that her and BF had only stayed together at the cabin on one occasion. 5. She agreed she had no problems telling her mum about the accused scaring her in the car but said she did not tell her mother what was going on because she was 7 and did not know what was going on. She agreed she did not like what the accused was doing, and that she felt scared, but said she was more scared of the accused's threat that she would not have a mum and dad anymore. She only told her mother about the driving because she thought the accused was going to be angry at her mother. 6. It was put to her that none of the events recited in her evidence in chief occurred. She said they did. 7. When her and AM were in kindergarten, she would not associate with AR (who was a year older but in their composite class), but AM would. She did not recall AR staying over at the accused's house often. She agreed BF and her mother would be there, often on weekends. She did not have a memory of AR staying over, but remembered BF's family staying over, including her two brothers. 8. Ms Cusack then took LP to her statement where she said she would sleep on a trundle bed if AR and BF were also staying, in light of her evidence that she had no memory of AR staying. LP then said that when she made her statement in 2021, she remembered AR staying over with her on 2 occasions. She said BF would only stay through the week. She disagreed with the proposition that BF would mostly stay on the weekend, at the same time as her. 9. She said she never went to AM's house before school, but sometimes her mother would drop her off to AM's house after school. Organised play dates were always on a Friday or Saturday. 10. LP said she only stayed overnight at the accused's cabin after the flood once, but she went there multiple times for play dates. It was put to her that AM's birthday party happened in 2008. She denied the suggestion and said that she remembered AM getting a lot of new things for her room because they just had the flood and she lost everything. She said the accused's family moved back to their house after the flood roughly around the time of AM's birthday. She was not invited to a birthday party the previous year. There was only one birthday party which included a lot of kids. 11. LP said she pulled back from her relationship with AM after they came back from the Gold Coast holiday in October 2009, but before November 2009. She started to make friends with other people and did not see her as often on weekends, whereas before she was at the accused's house virtually every weekend. She started to become friendly with AR after pulling back from AM. She also agreed she was close to AR at the beginning of 2009 and that she was still friendly with AM in January 2010. 12. She did not see AR at AM's house after the Gold Coast holiday. She could not recall seeing AR at the cabin at all (after March 2009). The only occasion she saw AR at the accused's house was at AM's birthday party after the floods. 13. It was put to her that she had described an incident to police where BF was present, and it was fairly significant that she did not remember BF being present initially when giving evidence (she later recalled after viewing her statement) to which she agreed. Ms Cusack suggested she did not remember because the incident did not happen. She said that it did happen. She also disagreed with Ms Cusack that there was no pull-out bed in AM's room when she stayed over. 14. It was put to her that she only became friends with AM and began to stay overnight at her house at the end of 2009, not 2008. She said, "It was 2008. I was in kindergarten." She agreed that she had not found any photographs of her or AM during 2008. 15. She agreed she was friends with AR on social media but has not seen her around town or said hello. She knows what AR looks like from social media. She has never directly messaged AR on social media, and they have not spoken about the allegations. She says she does not know anyone involved (in this matter), and the police officer (Detective Wallace) told her she was not allowed to 'name names.' She said police asked her if anyone else stayed at the accused's house, and she told them she had met two girls (AR and BF) while staying there. 16. When asked about ejaculation, she said she was generalising because the second time the accused ejaculated, he used a tissue and the first time, either a tissue or a towel. She was then referred to her statement where she had said the second time, he had used a towel, and the first time, a tissue or a towel. She said that the first time she made her statement, she could not remember whether the accused used a towel or tissue the second time he ejaculated and agreed a number of her allegations were generalised. 17. She said she has had no contact with BF, including social media and no contact with the complainant MC. 18. In re-examination she was referred to what she told police about the accused ejaculating into a tissue or a towel. She said she now had a memory of the accused using a towel. Evidence of MC 1. MC was born on 14 March 2003 and was 20 when she gave evidence in the trial. She attended kindergarten at [the local public school] in 2008. She was in class with AM. They were friends. The friendship extended outside of school when they started doing tennis lessons together, maybe around year 2. She began going over to AM's house for play dates around year 1 or year 2. The accused picked them up after school. 2. She started staying overnight in year 2 or 3, usually on a Friday night right after school. She met BF who also stayed over AM's house. MC would sleep in AM's bed in the position closest to the wall and AM would sleep closest to the bedroom door. When BF stayed with them, BF, MC and AM would all sleep in AM's bed. MC recalled AM's younger sister, SM was born at the time she started sleeping over at their house. 3. MC drew a diagram of AM's bedroom which became Exhibit 7. She also spent time in the garage of the accused's home, which had a fairly large bed and couches. The diagram MC drew of the garage became Exhibit 8. 4. In year 4 MC moved from [the local public school] to [another school]. 5. She would usually sleepover at the accused's house on the weekend and her mother would pick her up on a Sunday. She would catch the bus to AM's school and then she would be picked up or get dropped off near AM's house. Count 39 and 40 1. She recalled the accused coming into AM's bedroom where she was sleeping. She was asleep on the wall side of the bed. He stood with one foot in between the gap of the bed and the wall, and his other leg was on the bed. He was pleasuring himself, stroking his penis. She believes there was a bathroom light on or some light towards the hallway. He continued touching himself for about 5 minutes. It did not stop so she turned around and pretended to be asleep. He touched her leg, and she turned around. AM was still asleep next to her. Count 41 1. MC gave evidence she was seated on the edge of AM's bed, facing the door, which was opposite to the bathroom. The bathroom was open enough for her to see inside. She saw the accused stroking his penis and videotaping it. she thought this was gross and shut AM's bedroom door. Context evidence 1. MC and BF were in the garage. MC says the accused walked in and said, "you guys should kiss". She felt compelled to kiss BF because the accused was an adult and she saw it as just a kiss. MC and BF pecked on the lips. The accused saw this from the stairs. He was laughing. He said "No, stop, like a real kiss." MC and BF then tongue kissed. After they pulled away the accused stood there then walked away. They did not tell AM about the kiss. Count 42 1. When Snapchat came out, the accused sent her a friend request. She was in year 3 or 4. One night, she was staying at AM's house, and the accused was in the bathroom when she received a video depicting him stroking his penis in the shower. She was able to identify this as the accused because of his big gold bracelet, a watch on his left hand, and multiple rings on his fingers and the shower layout. She responded to the video, saying it was gross. He said it was normal. Count 43 1. MC recalled an incident where the accused was picking her and AM up under the arms and throwing them into the deep end of the pool at the accused's house. They would have their backs to him when he was throwing them. She said that when he was lifting her up, the accused went inside her swimmers, near her bottom and vagina. She said as he was throwing them, his hands would go lower to have more momentum when throwing them. 2. When he would throw her, he would start from her armpits and then make his way down her body, to her hips and then throw her. As he was throwing her, he went inside her swimmers and touched her bottom and vagina. He put 2 fingers inside her vagina. This hurt her. The other hand was on her hip when his fingers were in her vagina. He removed his fingers and launched her into the pool. She swam to the other end and got out. Her mother picked her up that afternoon. Her vagina and the area around it felt sore. She thought she may have been getting her period for the first time. After refreshing her memory from her statement, she remembered she was bleeding which also made her think she got her period. After the incidents 1. She still stayed over the accused's house after this incident but not as much as before. When she slept overnight and BF was also there, she would sleep in the middle of AM and BF because she did not know what else the accused would do. 2. MC knew FH, who went to school with her after she moved from [the local public school]. MC introduced FH to AM. MC and AM went to the same high school. She knew AR, who was AM's next-door neighbour, but was not in any classes with her and believed she was a year older. She knew LP but did not spend time at AM's house when LP was there. MC did not spend time at AM's house when AR was there. 3. She was shown a picture taken in Sydney of herself, her brother and her cousins, which became Exhibit 11. She provided the picture to police and said that it was taken after the incident with the accused in the bathroom; (Count 41) and the first incident in the bedroom; (Counts 39 and 40). Complaint 1. The first person MC told about what happened at AM's house was a detective in 2020. She told her roommate CW that the accused touched her when she was young, but she could not remember what she said word for word and did not explain the details. This conversation occurred right before the second COVID lockdown. CW encouraged her to tell her mother and police. She did not tell her mother because MC was living in Sydney and her mother was still living in their town, and she believed this was a conversation to have face to face. 2. Her evidence initially was that she spoke to police prior to speaking to her mother. She refreshed her memory from her statement, and then said that she spoke to her mother prior to police. Her mother called her and asked if there was anything she needed to tell her. MC realised right away that CW had told her mother. She told her mother that the accused touched her when she was younger. She had not made a decision to tell police, but they contacted her, and she assumed her mother had told them something. 3. MC gave evidence that around October 2017, AM's house burnt down, and after that the family moved away from the town. A few months before the house burnt down, she was not speaking to AM at school much and was not speaking to her online. It was probably May 2017 that MC stopped visiting her at her home. Cross-examination of MC 1. She agreed that she went on two cruises with the accused's family in 2014 and 2016. The cruises were with her family. She did not remember BF's family being on the cruise. 2. MC said that the first time she remembers something happening with the accused was after AM's sister SM had been born. 3. She had a recollection of BF's brother sleeping overnight at the accused's house once or twice. She did not have a recollection of BF's mum staying overnight. 4. MC was taken to paragraph 20 of her statement where she had said "[the accused] was on my side of the room between the wall and the bed. He was kneeling on the floor and had his right leg up". It was put to her that she did not mention to police that the accused was standing on the side of the bed, with his leg on the bed, as she had in her evidence. She agreed that she described him as kneeling to police, and went on to say, initially, whether he was standing or kneeling, it was dark and either way he did have one leg up. She also said, "maybe he was lying onto the bed, maybe I misworded what I had wrote on the statement, but he definitely had his leg up on the bed." 5. She was asked whether she had a clear recollection or a "hazy, dream-like memory" of that particular bedroom incident. MC answered, "no, I do remember waking up feeling quite startled because I haven't had that happened before. There was a light from the hallway where I think it was the hallway or the bathroom, but I could see what was happening". 6. She disagreed with the suggestion that she did not start staying overnight until year 6, saying it was definitely during primary school. 7. Regarding the bathroom incident, she disagreed with the suggestion that she could not see the bathroom door from AM's bedroom, only a bit of the door, but not the actual bathroom itself. MC said that it was, "straightaway directly opposite. The door was wide open, I could see what was in the bathroom," which was the accused masturbating himself for about 2 or 3 minutes. 8. Regarding the Snapchat video, MC said it was sent between 2014 and 2015. She recognised it as the accused because he was the 'sender' and also because of his jewellery. It was put to her that the accused had sent a rude meme to a number of people on Facebook in 2016. She did not recall receiving it. She disagreed that the only time she received an inappropriate video from the accused was on Facebook in 2016. 9. MC confirmed that as of June 2016, she was not really friends with AM anymore, and it was around that time that the pool incident occurred. After this incident she stopped going around and nothing else happened. She said that by around 2017, when the accused's family moved, she was no longer friends with them. 10. MC agreed the pool incident occurred in 2016, when she was 13, turning 14. When asked if she had her period when she was 10 or 11, she said she had it when she was quite young, but she could not remember the exact age. MC was taken to her statement where she had described putting her feet on the accused's knees, and him launching her into the pool from there. Later in evidence, MC said she was standing on the ground. She went on to say that it was "hard to say because I was always swimming in different ways. But from what I can remember I was standing on the ground." When asked why she told police she was on the accused's knees, she responded that at that time, she was still thinking about what happened, and maybe had misspoken when she gave her statement. She was not thinking about whether she was sitting or standing. It was put to her she made up the business about standing. She disagreed and said she had just forgotten the minor details of whether she was standing or sitting. 11. Regarding the kissing incident in the garage, she agreed that she had not mentioned to police that the accused asked them to do a 'real kiss.' She disagreed with the suggestion that she had just added this detail in her evidence, but agreed the day she gave her evidence was the first time she mentioned or remembered he told them to go further. MC said that the accused definitely told them to kiss and did go further by asking them to make out, which was not mentioned in her statement. She said it had been 2 years since she made her statement and since then she has had time to think about situations. She agreed she was confused about what happened. She said, "I guess it just felt wrong, but I wasn't sure. I was young." 12. She did not tell her friends about what happened even when they were telling her about their first sexual experiences, because she felt embarrassed and scared. 13. She agreed the accused made no threats. She agreed she had a close relationship with her mother. She agreed she had counselling before she made her statement in February 2022. Evidence of BF 1. BF was born on 19 April 2002 and was 21 when she gave evidence in the trial. She attended another public school from AM from kindergarten to year 6, and then went to [the local high school] with AM. She knew the accused's family since she was a baby through her mother's friendship with KG. She was 3 months apart from AM (2 months in the agreed facts). She would spend almost every weekend with the accused's family. 2. She was 6 or 7 when the sleepovers started. She would mainly sleep in AM's bedroom, but they would also sleep in KG and the accused's bedroom or the playroom. When BF slept in AM's bed, she would always sleep closest to the wall. There was a gap of about 30cm between the bed and the wall. 3. Before SM was born her bedroom was a playroom. After SM was born, they turned the garage into a playroom. BF drew a diagram of AM's room which became Exhibit 13. Her diagram of the accused's house became Exhibit 14. 4. FH would also have sleepovers at AM's house when BF was there. BF was about 14 or 15 when FH slept over. 5. The accused's dining room had a long table with 6 chairs. One half of the dining table was used for the kids to eat on, and the other half had two computers, one for the accused and one for KG, which they would play with. BF said her and AM were also able to play on the computers. Count 29, 30 and 31 1. BF said she went to bed in AM's room, wearing a blue Cinderella nightie. AM later woke her up to go sleep in the accused and KG's room, and they did. BF was sleeping in the middle next to the accused, AM was next to her, and KG was on the other side. The accused was wearing a white robe and Bulldogs boxer shorts. She woke up to the accused pressing his penis against her bum area; (Count 29). The accused guided her hands towards his penis and had her masturbate his penis without ejaculation; (Count 31). She did not recall how the episode ended. She just went to sleep. She went between KG's legs and curled up into a foetal position. 2. She later refreshed her memory from paragraph 15 of her statement dated 21 December 2021, and gave evidence that the accused rubbed her vagina before moving her hand to his penis. She could not remember whether the rubbing was over or underneath clothing; (Count 30). BF relation to other complainants 1. BF knew AR. AR would also stay at AM's house when BF was there, and all 3 of them would sleep in AM's bed. She did not recall anything happening when AR was there. 2. BF knew LP through the accused and KG. LP was also there when BF was sleeping over, and they would all sleep in the playroom or in AM's bed. 3. BF recalls going on the trip to the Gold Coast with KG, AM and the accused. She stayed at a hotel with AM's family and AR. She did not recall her mother or brothers being there. She remembers LP on the trip, but LP did not stay with the accused's family. She said nothing happened to her on the Gold Coast trip. Count 32 and 33 1. BF was using KG's computer. KG had gone to bed. On this occasion she believed she was about 7 or 8. The accused asked her to sit and look at his pets (a computer game) on the computer. The accused rubbed her chest area, above her clothing; (Count 32). He rubbed her vagina above her clothes; (Count 33). This occurred more than once, and there was one specific occasion where the accused touched her below the clothing. Count 34 and 35 1. BF recalled that she was spending almost every day of the Christmas holidays with AM. On one occasion during this time, she was seated on the dining table watching the accused play Facebook games on the computer. He was wearing a white robe. He told her to come over. She sat between his spread legs, not on his lap. He started to rub her body. Eventually she felt his penis on her back. It was erect. He rubbed her vagina under her clothes and inserted his finger in it. She felt that he was doing a circular motion with his finger inside her vagina. This is the only time she recalls he inserted his finger into her vagina. Count 36 1. BF gave evidence that her and AM were asleep in the garage, which was used as a playroom after SM was born. AM was asleep on one of the beds, and BF was asleep on one of the blue lounges. She was around 9. She woke up to the accused's penis in her face. She was laying down and his penis was level with her head, just under her eye. His penis was erect, and he was naked. She turned over to face the back of the lounge and pretended to be asleep. She felt his penis on her back. BF says a woman came in and whispered, "what are you doing?" She believes it was KG, but never saw who it was. Count 37 and 38 1. BF was in primary school when she had woken up in AM's bed, possibly around the early morning. AM was not in her bed. She cannot recall if she was wearing undergarments. The accused was in the room, wearing a robe. He sat on the bed. He put his hand underneath the doona. The situation ended up with the accused licking her vagina, under the clothes. She felt the tip of his tongue on the outside of her vagina, not inside, going around in circles, a flicking sort of feeling. After the incidents 1. The accused stopped touching her when she started high school, when she was aged 11 or 12. 2. There was an overlap of AR and LP staying at AM's house. AR stopped coming over after SM was born, but she continued to see LP at the accused's house. She knew MC. They slept over at the accused's house together. MC was around the accused's house for several years before she stopped visiting. She believes MC's visits dropped off when MC and AM started high school. 3. BF last spoke to AM in January 2023. KG texted her for her 21st birthday but she did not respond. She received a message from the accused in October 2021. The last contact was in October 2021, they exchanged affectionate messages. She described her feelings towards the accused in October 2021 in the following terms, "he's been a father figure all my life. Besides everything, I did at that time love him like I would a father." When asked if she had any other feelings about the accused at that time, she said: "I have always had thoughts or sickening thoughts that I thought like that are sickening thought why are you having those thoughts where what I'm talking about today and I just thought there was something wrong with me of why I would think that about him." (Transcript 15 March 2024, p 315(26-19)) 1. She went on to give her statement to police in December 2021. Complaint 1. BF received a call from her mother when she was leaving the gym. Her mother asked her if she was sitting down, and that she had something to tell her. She thought it was about her Nan passing away. Her mother told her to promise not to tell anyone, but she did not promise. Her mother told her that the accused had been arrested for molesting a young girl, who was AR. Her mother told her the specific allegations (licking) by AR. Her mother asked her if she had been touched, and she burst into tears and said "maybe." Her mother asked her why she said maybe. She responded, "because I was just so afraid that I was just I was just like maybe like I didn't want mum to feel like it was her fault or anything like that." She told her mother that: "for so long I've had these disgusting thoughts in my head… These dreams and I just thought I was a sicko thinking that about my godfather and I said and it just feels like such a relief to know I'm not sick in the head and that those it was like validation that those weren't just things that I thought happened like I know they happened and I had that validation." (Transcript 15 March 2024, p 316(29-36)) BF evidence regarding MC pool incident 1. BF recalls there was a family barbeque at the accused's house. MC, FH, and AM were there also, playing in the pool. The accused came into the pool and the girls gravitated towards him to splash him and be silly. BF was at one end of the pool wearing goggles and she remembered the accused did a sort of backward swipe towards MC's vagina. 2. BF had a specific memory of the accused groping her own vagina in the pool, over her swimmers. She had a specific memory of the accused groping MC also. BF was wearing goggles and saw the accused quickly groping MC's vagina from the other side of the pool. BF seeing the accused in the bathroom 1. BF said the bathroom in the accused's house was directly across from AM's room. The accused would always leave the door semi-ajar when they were in there and he was having a shower. He would get naked and stare at her and then close the door. Cross-examination of BF 1. BF agreed that she sent an email to Detective Wallace on 3 January 2022 indicating that she tried to jog her memory and could only just remember vivid memories and nothing that could be used properly. 2. She believes that the Gold Coast holiday was for AM's birthday, and that she was in primary school at the time. She did not remember a birthday party for AM with a number of kids in kindergarten. 3. She was asked, in relation to her dreams about the accused: "Q. Was it like you had a dream? Like you thought they were dreams. A. I thought they were dreams. I didn't know if they were real or not." (Transcript 15 March 2024, p332 (20-21)) 1. BF was asked about whether the licking of the vagina episode was like a flashback with some sort of dream-like sequence. She said that a flashback was a good way to describe it. She also said that she used the expression "I feel like this was happening" when describing the licking incident, not because she was not sure that the incident happened, which she was sure about, but because she was not sure about "the situation, or whether it was day or night." 2. BF conceded her mother told her about AR and LP. She accepted her mother told her AR had complained that the accused licked her. She disagreed with the proposition that she gave her statement and evidence using the terms "he would" and "I would" because her memory of events was dream-like, and she did not have specific memories of a particular incident. She said, "well, I do. As I stated to the lawyer just before" (Transcript 15 March 2024, p 333 (32)). She also disagreed with the proposition that she had forgotten about the allegation of the accused touching her on the vagina in the bed, because it did not happen. She said it did happen. 3. She was asked how she concluded that she was 7 or 8 when the incidents happened. She said "I remember being younger. I remember being in primary school. Particular photos. Looking at myself, knowing what times and events were happening is how I got to really know." (Transcript 15 March 2024, p 337(43-45)) 4. BF agreed that when she first made her statement, she did not mention that she had been groped in the pool, or that she saw anything happen to MC in the pool. When asked why she did not tell police about the groping incident between 2021 and 2024, BF said that there was no particular reason, other than her memories coming flooding back, and she agreed those memories (about the pool) only came back to her when she made her statement in February 2024. 5. BF remembered being in a bed with four girls: MC, FH, AM and herself. This may have been in the games room, or the bedroom. She agreed this was when she was older, in high school. She could not remember whether AR, LP herself and AM shared a bed, but she could remember specifics of only 3 of them together at one time. She agreed there was only one bed in AM's room and one bathroom in the accused's house. She said there was a 30cm gap between AM's bed and the wall until cordial had been spilt, so they moved the bed up against the wall so nobody could see the spill. 6. Regarding her evidence about Count 34 and 35 (digital penetration in front of computer) it was suggested to BF that the accused could not have been wearing a robe during this incident, as she alleged, because it was in December, during summer. BF said that the accused and KG always had the air-conditioning really cold, and the accused would wear a robe as the computers were right underneath the air-conditioning. She said the air-conditioning was visible in one of the pictures. She agreed she had not mentioned the air-conditioning to police but denied making it up to explain her answer. She agreed she told police she felt this incident happened during colder months because the accused was wearing a robe. 7. BF denied the suggestion that the incident in the playroom was the only 'vivid memory' that she had. It was put to her that her allegations in respect of feeling the accused's penis on her back and touching her breast when she was at the dining table were generalised, and she agreed, but said it was because it occurred multiple times. 8. In relation to the playroom incident, it was suggested to BF that she came to see the accused naked in circumstances where a number of girls were staying over as well and he came to look out of the window, naked. She disagreed with this, saying only her and AM were in the room, the accused had put his penis on her face, and somebody came to collect him. She agreed the accused was often inappropriate, "carrying on like a 13-year-old boy" and would send her stupid pictures. She was not aware if the accused sent these images to her brothers as well, who she agreed he was close with. 9. She agreed that despite what she says happened, she continued to visit the accused's house even after they moved to Queensland. She said at the time she was still visiting them, she was still having dream-like images and thought something was wrong with her. She agreed with Ms Cusack that she did not think the dream-like images were real at the time. 10. She agreed nothing happened in the bedroom when AR was staying over with her and LP. She agreed that she would wake up when someone came into AM's bedroom, because of her concerns about the accused. She agreed her, AR and AM would sleep in the bed. She agreed nothing happened in the bed when her, AR and AM were asleep. 11. She has seen LP since LP stopped going to the accused's house. BF purchased a horse in April 2023 and went to a horse shop where LP worked. They discussed only the items BF was purchasing. She was aware at that stage LP was suspected to have made a complaint against the accused. She has had no contact with AR or AR's parents since AR stopped going to the accused's house. She was not sure if she has seen MC since MC stopped going to the accused's house. She could not recall whether MC also stayed over on a Wednesday night, which was her night. She agreed that there were times her mother was in a relationship and would not visit the accused's family. She disagreed that her mother stayed over with her at the accused's house quite often when she was younger. 12. She was asked why she didn't mention anything about seeing the accused naked in the bathroom (MC's allegation) in her first statement (she mentioned it in her statement of 24 February). BF denied that someone asked her about the bathroom. 13. BF said she did not say anything to her mother about her dreams because she did not want to break down the family dynamic. She denied the suggestion that no inappropriate activity occurred between her and the accused. Re-examination of BF 1. BF said that she did not remember things she told police in February 2024 back in 2021 and 2022, when she first made her statement. She said she has been stressed and thinking, and there were so many gaps in her memory that would come back and she would say, "like oh, my god that happened, like that's definitely happened". She said she came to form the view that her flashbacks and dreams were real "when I finally got to tell my mum that it had happened, it was just a thing in my mind that was just like, you're not crazy and those things did happen and it's very validating." She stayed at the accused's house in December 2019, despite still having 'visions'. Complaint evidence in respect of AR TC 1. TC was dating AR when he was in year 12, in 2018. He gave evidence that AR messaged him via Snapchat that something happened to her when she was a child by a neighbour. She did not give any further details. He told her she should tell her parents. 2. He said that the circumstances of AR telling him about the allegation were, it was the day after his friend's birthday party, he had been drinking and spending a lot of time with his mates and she was quite upset. He recalls a month after she told him, she messaged him while he was at Schoolies on the Gold Coast that she had told her parents. Other evidence WR 1. WR is the mother of LR, TR and AR. She resides at [redacted], a property they purchased in late 2007 and moved into in May 2008. They renovated the property before moving in. During the course of the renovations, they met the accused and KG. They were next-door neighbours. AR and AM were in a mixed class together. AR would have sleepovers most Fridays at the accused's house together with a group of other girls – including BF. WR was working full-time, and her husband was running his own business. In 2008, WR or the accused would drop AR off to school. AR would sometimes walk over to the accused's house in the morning prior to drop off, as there was only a gate between the two properties. 2. There was a specific situation which made her uncomfortable. AR was at the accused's house and called her over to bring a device. She went into the house and saw the accused and the girls lying on a king-sized bed. The accused had a towel wrapped around him. She asked what was going on and told AR, "Let's go." There was a time after this where the visits "spaced out," but she did eventually allow AR to go back to the accused's house. 3. The accused's family moved to the units at the local golf club after their home was damaged by the March-April 2009 floods. AR would sleepover at the accused's house when they were at the unit. 4. She recalled two trips to the Gold Coast. All she recalled of the first one was that she allowed AR to go with the accused's family on that trip without any other family but does not remember going herself or who else was on that trip. She remembers going on the second trip for AM's birthday, with her husband and other children, the accused's family, and KF/KS with BF and her two boys. 5. WR knew LP. She recalled AM, AR and LP spending time together at the accused's house. She remembered AR spending the first night of the second Gold Coast trip at the accused's accommodation. After the Gold Coast trip, the friendship changed, and they distanced themselves for a little while. AR went over the accused's house, but not as much. There was an incident near the pool on the trip which made her pack up and leave early. 6. In late 2009, AR came home from the accused's house upset and crying. She asked her what the matter was, and AR said the accused had told her to "F off home." She went to the accused's backyard and asked him what the matter was. The accused said they had been fighting all morning and he was over it. She said that was OK, he could have sent her home but there was no need to use that expression. That was the last time AR went to the accused's house, and they stopped having any social contact with the accused's family. There was also an ongoing conflict between the accused and her family which went on for some time. 7. In 2010 the school had rung them about an incident where AR had been teasing AM for wearing pull-ups. AR said it did not happen. They had a meeting with the school about it and also about schoolyard intimidation by the accused. 8. In late 2018, AR told her mother she was driving to her sister LR's house to talk, and she did. LR called WR and told her they would be coming back together. WR said it was late, and asked whether it could wait to tomorrow, and LR said it could not. WR and her husband got out of bed and waited for them to come back in the loungeroom. AR went straight to her bedroom and LR told them that AR had been sexually touched by the accused. They went to AR's bedroom and found her a mess; crying, in a ball and upset. She did not say anything other than that she had been molested by the accused. She did not give any details about exactly what happened. Before going to police, AR had told them she had been touched in her personal area, and there was a dildo and touching of the penis. 9. WR gave evidence that before AR went to the police, she told them that during the trip with the accused's family to the south, she was "separated from the rest of them," and that quite often, she would wake up in the middle of the night and there was a dildo there. She said this happened at the Gold Coast once. She said AR told her before she went to the police that the real reason she was sent home in late 2009 from the accused's house (in tears) was because her and AM were going to have a shower after the pool, and the accused told her AM would have a shower first and she would wait. AR understood something was going to happen, and so she said no, so the accused told her to go home, and that was the last time she went there. 10. WR went to the local police station with AR, LR and her husband MR. AR used WR's phone to make the pretext call to the accused, but she was not in the room during the call. She said that AR was an absolute mess after the call and distraught on their way home. The accused denied everything. WR received a message late at night and they contacted the detective to give her the message. The detective came to their house and took photos of the Snapchat messages. At the end of the Snapchat conversation, she said AR was an absolute mess. 11. WR agreed that she mentioned only the second Gold Coast trip that she and her family went on in her statement. She had remembered the other trip when she was cleaning out her linen cupboard and saw an Australian Zoo towel which made her realise there were two trips, and she had not gone on the Australian Zoo trip. On the trip for AM's birthday, she recalled BF's family's room was next door to the accused's room and all the kids slept together in the same room. She agreed that Exhibit B, a picture dated 12 June 2009, was from the trip that she went on with the accused's family. 12. WR was taken to her statement which described the towel incident with the accused, where she had asked him what was going on, and he had responded that he had just jumped out of the shower and the girls were talking to him. She agreed she said in her statement that he did not appear fussed by her coming in. 13. She agreed that she had not mentioned LP and AR being at the accused's house together, but said she was not asked about that. She disagreed that AR only became friends with LP following the breakdown of the relationship with the accused's family, saying they were at different schools so did not have anything to do with each other. She denied that the LP's family would come over to her house after the breakdown of their relationship with the accused's family. 14. WR was asked about the delay from 2018 to 2020 when AR eventually made her statement. She said that AR was initially uncomfortable making a statement, and when police would come and ask for AR to make a statement, she would tell them she was not ready. At one point, AR came home and said she was ready, and WR said "let's go." 15. In cross examination WR admitted she does not know when AR told them about the details in the allegations and cannot confirm whether it was after/ before AR spoke to police. WR was the one who contacted police, and AR was reluctant to make statement. MR 1. MR is AR's father. He confirmed the family moved into their property in May 2008. He is a builder and took care of the renovations before they moved in. He gave evidence that AR became friends with AM, and sometimes stayed afterschool with her and sometimes stayed overnight. He recalled that in 2008 or 2009, AR was allowed to go on a trip with the accused, KG and AM to a caravan or holiday park near Taree or Forster. He recalled BF also went on this trip. 2. He recalled the accused's family having to stay at accommodation at the local golf club because of the floods, and that AR would stay with them there after school. He would pick her up from there. He recalled going on a trip to the Gold Coast in mid-2009 for AM's birthday, with his wife and 3 children. He believed BF, her mother and brothers also went on this trip and stayed at the same accommodation as them. He said AR spent the first night of this trip in the accused's unit and would still visit their house after this trip, but recalled one particular incident where AR came home upset because she had been abused by the accused and told to leave, or "fuck off." He said AR did not go back to the accused's house after this. He described AR as hysterical after coming back and there was something about a shower, but it was pretty hard to decipher. 3. There was a period where they did not have any contact with the accused's family, but after this, the accused had called him and said something to the effect of that it was okay for AR to come back. He responded that AR would not be coming back. He said that at the time, there was a series of disagreements and difficulties between him and the accused's family, but no personal interactions. In year 6 AR changed schools and there was no more contact with the accused's family. 4. He confirmed that AR complained through her sister LR. He could not recall the exact words LR used but said that AR had been sexually abused. They then spoke to AR in her bedroom, she was very upset and struggled to get it out. AR told them that in the period of time when she used to go to the accused's house, she was in bed one night and woke up to the accused between her legs, trying to insert things into her body. She spoke of another instance of his head between her legs. She said these occurred at the accused's house. Later she told him something had happened on the Gold Coast trip. She also said something happened at the local golf club units, but it was a pretty hysterical conversation. He recalled that after what AR had disclosed to them, WR got in contact with the sexual assault counsellor at the local hospital because they were trying to get clarity about what to do to look after AR's welfare. The counsellor told them she was a mandatory reporter and had to report the incident to police. He believes the mandatory reporter told police about the allegations because they were contacted afterwards. 5. AR did not make a statement to police for some time because she did not feel comfortable, and he told her that she should, but she just said she did not want to. 6. In cross-examination MR confirmed that the conversations he relayed about AR telling him things all occurred on the first night. He said that AR never caught the bus home with her siblings because they went to different schools, and she did not catch the bus alone either at that age. 7. He did not recall AR going to the Gold Coast with the accused's family by herself. He did not recall an occasion where AR tried to go to the accused's family on their boat after the swearing incident. LR 1. LR is currently 31 and was 15 years old and in year 10 in 2008. AR is 9 years younger than her. She said AR first went to [the local public school] and would spend time with the girl next door, AM, mostly after school. There were also overnight visits on the weekends. She knew the family next door would drop AR off to school sometimes. 2. She remembered going on holiday to the Gold Coast for AM's birthday with her family, the accused's family and BF's family. She remembers staying for 2 nights, and AR staying with the accused's family on the first night. She said that after the holiday, AR continued to visit the accused's family, but it was very limited. Conversation with AR and their parents 1. LR moved to another town in 2018. She remembers messages between herself and AR in November 2018, arranging for her to pick up AR, which she did. These messages became Exhibit 1. She had a conversation with AR in the car back to her house, a conversation at her house, and a conversation on the way to their parent's house. AR told her that she would wake up to a sex toy inside of her and the accused touching her and having his head between her legs. She was very upset. LR told her that they needed to tell their parents. AR was thinking about telling them in the morning, but LR said they needed to be told straightaway. LR called their parents and told them they were coming down to tell them something, so they needed to be awake, even though it was quite late, around 9.30 or 10pm. 2. When they arrived, AR went to her bedroom, and she went to the lounge where her parents were. She told them that it was about the accused, who did things to AR. She said he had used sex toys and would touch her with his hands. She then went to AR's room to comfort her and make sure she was okay. She was very upset, crying and beside herself. The only further conversations they had about it was about her getting help and moving beyond it, but they did not speak about reporting it or anything. Snapchat messages 1. She gave evidence about taking photographs of the Snapchat messages that AR exchanged with the accused. AR was constructing the messages and getting her opinion on what to send. Cross-examination 1. It was suggested to LR that she had been driving a car unlicensed and there was a complaint and police attended. She said she did not remember. 2. She denied the suggestion that her sister was known to exaggerate or was a drama queen. 3. She agreed that she initially told the police that there was a face-to-face or conversation over the phone with AR. She agreed she did not mention the initial text messages with AR to police, and only told them about a face-to-face or telephone conversation. She said she did not mention the text messages because they were not loading, so the police officer suggested bringing the messages the next day, which she did. 4. She responded "how intense" to her sister's allegations because she was completely shocked. 5. AR did not really say anything to her parents in the bedroom. She said AR was angry and did not want to be there when she spoke to the counsellor and was at that point not interested in speaking to anyone else about the allegations. Detective Senior Constable Andrew Ronald Martin 1. DSC Martin is stationed at a nearby town. He was involved in a Cellebrite examination of an iPhone on 21 November 2022. He downloaded the data from the first extraction onto a USB. The data was locked because of the password on the device. Another examination of the iPhone was conducted by Troy Anderson on 10 January 2024 using updated software which enabled more information to be retrieved. This software was not available at the time of the first examination. Complaint evidence in respect of MC CW 1. CW has known MC since she was 5 years old. They went to primary and high school together. MC was in the year above her. They were best friends and were involved in sporting groups and sleepovers together. She described them as "two peas in a pod." CW spent 3 years in England and then returned in year 9 to attend the local high school that MC went to. CW knew AM but never visited her house in primary school. 2. CW and MC moved to Sydney together in about March 2021. They lived together for about 12 months. She said that in July 2021, MC had come home from a party quite upset, and told her something happened at the party which upset her and brought up childhood trauma about something that happened to her in primary school. She said MC told her she had been "sexually assaulted as a child. She would get thrown up in the pool and fingers would be shoved inside of her. She would get sent inappropriate photos and was inappropriately touched." She said [the accused] did this to her. She said that she had received a picture of his penis when she was a young child. 3. MC told CW not to tell anyone. CW told MC's mother the next day via Snapchat. Their Snapchat conversation became Exhibit 18. In the message, CW says, "she said she woke up and he was wanking next to her. He would play with (as said) in a sexual way and pretend he was just playing in the pool. He'd leave the door open while he'd shower and wank, so she'd see." She said she got this information from MC, the night she told her all these things. MC's mother sent CW a link to Rape Crisis NSW and some counselling lines. She told MC to report the matter to police the night she disclosed the allegations. MC was adamant no one should know. She was not aware MC reported the matter to police. CW was eventually contacted by police. 4. CW agreed in cross-examination that that the sum total of what she was told by MC was what was in the Snapchat message (Exhibit 18). SB 1. SB is MC's mother. AM and her daughter were in kindergarten together in 2008 but had no involvement with each other outside of school that year. They became closer after the March-April 2009 floods. The accused's family were staying at a holiday resort after the floods which was managed by her mother-in-law. After the accused's family moved back to their house MC started to spend time with AM outside of school, initially on weekend, for a play date for a couple of hours, and then she started to sleep over. SB has been to the accused's home. She gave evidence she had used the accused's bathroom, and that AM's room was "diagonally to the left of the bathroom, and the laundry almost opposite. The entrance to the laundry was almost opposite to the bathroom." 2. SB recalled MC went away for weekends with the accused's family and also went on two trips to the Gold Coast and several trips to Manning Point. BF would often be on these trips, and this is how MC became friends with her. SB also became friends with BF's mother, KF/KS, through the accused and KG. MC and AM were friends throughout high school, and MC continued to sleep over, but they were not as close as they had been in primary. She recalled BF, Cadence and FH also sleeping over at the accused's house during high school. She became close friends with KG and the accused and socialised at their house. There was card nights, parties, swimming and drinking. She stayed overnight on several occasions, as did KF/KS with her children. 3. She recalled going on holidays with the accused's family to Manning Point on two occasions, when MC was in high school. Each family would stay in a cabin, but the kids would often stay in between each cabin depending on the night. She also went on cruises with the accused's family. On the second cruise, she recalls BF's family, FH's family, the accused's son, CM, and his family, and the accused's brother's family. 4. MC and AM's friendship gradually ended, and they stopped hanging out at school. MC had her own friendship group and activities. Occasionally MC would go to the accused's house but became increasingly reluctant to go. 5. When MC was in high school SB asked her whether the accused had sent her anything inappropriate on Snapchat or done anything to her. MC said no. SB does not remember the exact year her relationship with the accused's family eased off. The last time she saw KG or AM was at her mother-in-law's funeral, which she believes was before the accused's house burned down. 6. She recalled being contacted by CW via Snapchat on 10 July 2021. She called MC after being contacted by CW. MC did not want to talk but eventually opened up. During this call, MC said that the accused had touched her sexually on several occasions and that he would lay next to her and masturbate. She said she did not want to report it to police because she was concerned about upsetting AM and KG. It happened at their house. Over the next few months, SB continued to tell MC to report to police. SB said that several months after the first conversation, she received a call from MC who was distressed, crying and hyperventilating. MC said a detective had contacted her and wanted to meet about what happened with the accused. After refreshing her memory from her statement, she said that during this conversation, MC also told her the accused would walk around naked and he touched her in the pool. KS/KF 1. KS/KF has 3 children, and BF is her youngest. She met KG when she was 17 and they became friends and kept in touch when she lived in Sydney. KS/KF moved back to her hometown in 1998, and BF was born in 2002. KG also had AM in that year. KS/KF moved back to Sydney but came back to their hometown when BF started year 1 at [another public school to AM]. AM started kindergarten when BF was in year 1. KS/KF would socialise with the accused and KG and would visit them almost every weekend. BF and her boys were with her. 2. Around this time KS/KF got to meet AR and her parents, and LP and her parents. BF would spend time with AR and LP at the accused's house. BF was there mostly on weekend nights, not on school nights. KF/KS was not always there when her daughter was there. Most of the time, AR and BF would sleep over together. Sometimes LP and BF were sleeping over together. Sometimes it was just BF and AM. The girls would sleep in AM's big double bed on the lounges, or in the games room, which had previously been the garage. She described AM and BF as close and BF being protective of AM. 3. KS/KF recalled going on a trip to the Gold Coast with the accused's family and AR's family. She also recalled there was another trip to the Gold Coast that BF, AR and AM went on, but she did not. 4. She believed LP started staying over at the accused's house from kindergarten and stopped going some months after AR stopped going over. After year 1, BF continued to stay over the accused's but not as much. She recalled TB spent time at the accused's house around the time they were there, and also slept over. BF slept over at the accused's house when she was in high school but not as much as before. 5. Once AM started high school at [redacted], KS/KF met MC through barbeques at the accused's house. She could not remember staying overnight when MC was there, but was aware MC stayed over with BF. KS/KF also knew FH through the accused's house and remembered her staying overnight there. She believes she stayed overnight while FH was there. She recalls nights where BF was staying over at the accused's house with FH but without her. KS/KF socialised with MC's parents and FH's parents at the accused's household, but the parents would not stay overnight. Phone call with KG in 2021 1. KS/KF would visit the accused's house after they had moved to the Gold Coast after the 2017 fire. She was still friends with them after this. She received a telephone call from KG just before Christmas in 2021. KG was extremely upset, uncontrollably crying, and said that the accused had been arrested because AR said he molested her. At first, she did not believe it, but then KG told her that there was another victim that she thought was LP. She told KG, maybe they were trying to get back at the accused's family for something. 2. After this conversation, KS/KF rang her daughter. The following exchange took place: "Mummy's a bit of a drama queen, and I overreact to things, but [the accused] has been arrested." And she just, a bit of silence. And then she goes, "Mum, what for?" And I said, "Well, [AR] and [LP] said that he molested them." And when she started screaming and crying and I said, "[BF] tell me, he didn't do it to you?" and she was just like. "I feel so validated, the nightmares, the flashbacks are all true." I asked her if she could tell me what happened. And she said, "You would not be able to deal with someone else, let alone what I would have to tell you." (Transcript 19 March 2024, p 470-471) 1. KS/KF told BF she was going to contact KG and tell her. BF cried and told her she did not want her mother to tell KG, and she did not want KG and AM to hate her. KS/KF did ring KG and told her that it was true, that she had spoken to BF who said the accused did the same thing to her, and BF did not lie. She said KG said she did not know what she was going to do and was crying uncontrollably. She did stay in contact with KG but not as often as before. The last time she saw KG was at KS/KF son's wedding 2 or 3 years ago. Cross-examination 1. KS/KF agreed that the accused drove BF to her year 12 formal after he had moved to the Gold Coast. AM was her plus one. She agreed her and BF attended the accused and AM's birthday party at the Gold Coast in 2020. She was aware BF spent some time with the accused's family in 2020. She agreed the accused attended her wedding. She agreed that KG, AM and SM attended her son's wedding the year after but disagreed that the accused came because her understanding was that he was in gaol. She agreed her memory of the accused's household was pretty vague, because she went there every weekend so one weekend did not stick out in her mind unless something significant happened. 2. She agreed that if she and other people were there, the accused would start drinking on a Friday night and continue drinking until lunchtime on Sunday. BF would stay in AM's room and her boys would stay in the lounge room. Sometimes BF would sleep in the converted garage perhaps for a birthday party, and it was like a big slumber party. She said when BF had gone into year 1, she did not want to go over the accused's house as much and had formed her own friendship group with kids from another school and would have sleepovers with them. KS/KF continued to go over to the accused's house. BF would have to come with her, but BF's visits alone became less frequent. She did not have any clear recollection of AR or LP staying overnight when she was staying. 3. She denied contacting the accused when he was in custody. She said after her son's wedding, she did not have as much contact with KG as before, but agreed she had sporadic contact with her until 2023 or late 2022. She was not aware KG still had some contact with BF. She agreed that she told KG not to contact BF anymore because BF felt uncomfortable. KS/KF was aware of the fall-out between AR's family and the accused's family over the pull-up issue, and the fall out with LP's family which occurred a couple of months after that. 4. KS/KF recalled AR staying at Manning Point when she was there but did not recall LP staying there. She recalled going to AM's birthday party, possibly in kindergarten, where everyone in AM's class had been invited. She could not recall when the bar at the back of the accused's house was built. KS/KF said she was constantly being sent memes by the accused. She agreed her sons were good friends with the accused until he was put in custody. 5. In re-examination KS/KF said that AM had a big party every year. TP 1. TP is the mother of LP and BP, who are children she shares with BM. Her current husband is SP. LP attended [the local primary school]. LP was in a composite or mixed class. LP would talk about AM and AR. Their friendship grew outside of school. LP started to go over AM's house around the time of AM's birthday party in kindergarten (2008). She could not recall if LP spent time at the accused's house before this party. She could not recall dropping her off at the party. AM had invited the whole class. LP continued to spend time there sometimes staying over throughout the week, or on a Friday or Saturday night, and sometimes she dropped her off in the morning so she could play with AM before school. The accused would then drive the girls to school. 2. She recalled an occasion when her husband dropped LP off at the accused's house on his motorbike for a sleepover. She later received a message from KG around 10 or 11pm that LP was feeling sick. SP picked her up from the accused's house. SP told her LP vomited in the car. 3. She remembered that the accused's family moved out to units near the local golf club because of the March-April 2009 floods. LP continued to have play dates with AM there, sometimes afterschool or on weekends. TP only saw the bottom storey of this unit, but LP told her they would sleep upstairs. TP knew AR and met her parents. She knew that AR and LP spent time together at AM's house, and knew BF spent a lot of time there too. LP told her this. She spent time at the accused's house when BF was there and met BF's family. 4. She recalled going to the Gold Coast in 2009 with her husband and 2 children. She cannot recall what accommodation her family stayed at. The accused's family were there, as well as AR, BF and KG's mother. They stayed at a resort. 5. She has been inside the accused and KG's house. She has been inside their bedroom, bathroom and AM's room. She said that if you stood in AM's bedroom looking towards the hallway, you could see straight across to the accused and KG's room. 6. She was shown a photograph of the accused's boat, which had "27 December 2009 at 1:07pm" on the back of the document which she wrote. It became Exhibit 23. She says that her computer gave her the date a photo was taken if she hovered over the picture. She recalled a day where her son caught two baby sharks on the boat. She said that LP stayed at the accused's house that night, but the rest of the family did not. There was another occasion where they watched Christmas carols on the accused's boat in 2009, and LP stayed that night at the accused's family. 7. TP recalled that on Boxing Day 2009, they took LP to the accused's house to sleep over and to exchange gifts with AM. LP stayed the night at the accused's house. They picked her up on the 27th. She said LP was very clingy that day and told her that her "Rudey" was sore. They called vagina "Rudey" at their home. She kept wanting to sit on her mother's lap, and she did not normally act like this. 8. On 1 January 2010, TP received a call telling her that BM, her children's biological father, had been injured in an accident and was on life support. She asked KG to come and get BP and LP, and she did. LP stayed that night with the accused and KG. TP's family had spent New Year's Eve with the accused's family. They went out on the boat and had a party. LP stayed at the accused's house. Her, BP and SP did not. LP returned home on 2 January. On 3 January, KG and the accused asked to come over their house for AM to ride her new quad bike that she had received for Christmas in their open space. 9. In late February 2010 (27 or 28 February), they had a pool installed at their house. The accused and KG came over on a Saturday because the accused was helping her husband pack around the pool with crusher dust. LP stayed at the accused's house that night. At some point between this Saturday and the Easter school holidays, LP came home from the accused's house and told her mother that "[the accused] is scary." When her mother asked her what she meant by that, she said that the accused was driving really fast, swearing a lot and telling people to "get the fuck out of the way." She said LP seemed rattled by it. She asked LP if there were other times the accused got scary or angry. LP said there was a time where a couple of girls were at the accused's house, including AM, BF and herself, and the toilet had got blocked. She said the accused 'roused' on all the kids and took LP into the bathroom and smacked her for blocking the toilet. LP said she did not really want to go back there anymore. TP spoke to the accused on the phone and said, "I'm sorry for mucking you around. I wasn't aware that you had made plans for the boys." 10. In 2011, LP started at another school. TP did not have anything more to do with the accused's family after that. 11. In October 2021 police came to TP's house and asked if she knew [the accused]. She said yes. They said they needed to speak to LP and asked if she had any days off. She sent LP a message to call her in her break. LP called back a bit later. TP told her there were some detectives that wanted to speak to her about the accused. LP said, "oh mummy you're gonna be so disappointed in me." LP stopped talking and TP could tell that she was crying. TP asked why, and LP said because the accused used to sexually assault her. TP burst into tears and asked, "how? What? Penis?" and LP said no, it was only fingers and tongue. TP said she needed to call the detectives. They were both crying. She told LP to hold it together for the afternoon and to call her when she finished work. TP rang the detective and pretty much repeated the conversation that she just had with LP. The detective stressed to her that she was not allowed to speak to LP about anything to do with this topic, but that she was allowed to comfort her when she got home. She understood she was not to speak to her husband or son because she was now a witness. Cross-examination 1. TP denied speaking to LP about the class birthday party in 2008. She agreed that the first time she went to the accused's house was for AM's birthday party but could not recall how LP got to that party. She recalled picking LP up from outside the accused's house after the birthday party, along with a group of other mums. She agreed that LP and AM had more playdates in 2009. She described herself as a cautious mum. She did not remember ever going inside the accused's house prior to the floods. 2. She agreed that in 2008 and 2009, she would have dropped LP off at the accused's house in the morning maybe 20 times and did not see AR there. She could not remember how many afternoon play dates took place between AM's birthday in 2008 and the end of 2009 but would say it was more than 10. She remembered AM and LP playing tennis in the afternoon and would consider this a play date. TP was then taken to her statement where she told police she was pretty sure there was around 5 afternoon play dates. She agreed she said this in her statement but said she has since recalled that AM and LP would go to tennis and have play dates over there. She has remembered a lot more things in the last two weeks. She agreed she was told by Detective Wallace to contact her if she remembered anything. She had a conversation with Detective Wallace who told her to document everything she remembered, and a statement would be taken from her at a later date. She did document what she remembered. The document was at home. She did not tell the Crown about it. There was a call for the document. 3. She agreed LP came home the night of the phone call. They had no discussions about what they discussed on the phone. TP was not allowed to talk to LP about anything LP had told her. She said she had not had a discussion about anything to do with visits to the accused's house from 2021 to 2024. Images from TP's computer 1. TP's statement refers to 2 images. She gave evidence that she gave police more than 2 images and does not know why this was not referred to in her statement. TP said the detective asked her to get photos, by asking "if there's any photos anything at your place at their place any photos, they could be relevant" so this is what she did. She denied going through the computer with her daughter and looking for photos, and she denied providing only one photo to the police. 2. She downloaded the images from her computer and showed them to the detective on her phone. There was a call for these images. She says she was not asked by her daughter to locate images on her computer, but LP did have access to her computer. She says she saw a manila folder on the kitchen bench and assumed that LP had compiled it. 3. She looked at these photographs and identified that some photos had her writing on the back. She confirmed that she had got the dates of the photographs from hovering on the picture on her computer. She recalled that LP had written on other pictures. She identified the boat picture (Exhibit O) as one TP had written on. She agreed the writing on top of this picture was hers but denied that the blue writing was hers, saying it appeared to be LP's neater writing. TP denied making this up as she went along. 4. She recalled there was a photo from the day LP said her "Rudey" was sore that she found just the other day. She said the date of the photo was 27 December 2009. She remembered they spent Christmas that year at home and then went to the accused's house on Boxing Day to exchange gifts. LP stayed the night at the accused's house. TP cannot remember if she wrote the date on the back of the image. She denied sitting with LP at her computer, writing down dates and LP adding comments to the pictures she printed out. 5. Regarding the photos, TP later gave evidence she was scrolling through her heap of photos the other day and screenshotted them and sent them to Kellie Robinson, the detective. These pictures were undated. The pictures were in a folder titled "[the accused]" on her desktop. She did not know who created the folder, but she has added images to it. She screenshotted the whole folder and sent it to Detective Robinson and emailed the whole folder as an attachment as well. She had Detective Robinson's email address. The screenshots and the emails contained exactly the same images. She sent the photographs a couple of weeks ago. Other topics 1. She agreed she told police LP told her she would mainly sleep on a bed on the floor in AM's bedroom. She agreed that when she made her statement to police on 12 November 2021, she knew that LP had made a statement. She did not discuss the fireworks on New Year's Eve or catching sharks on the accused's boat with LP. TP said LP did not tell her about sleeping in a fold-out lounge downstairs or anything like that when she was staying in the cabins. 2. She said she would not call the bathroom at the accused's house an ensuite, but there were two doors to the bathroom. She agreed there was only one bathroom. She denied LP told her about an ensuite. 3. Ms Cusack pointed out that TP was emotional when giving evidence about the motorbike drop off. She pointed out this evidence would not be emotional for her to give, unless she had been told by LP that something happened after the motorbike trip. TP disagreed and said the whole thing was emotional. 4. TP agreed the sketch she drew of the accused's house included the bar, deck and cabin (which were only constructed after the 2009 flood). She agreed all she remembered about what the exterior of the house looked like was "a pool, lots of kids, and lots of mum's picking up their kids." She agreed with Ms Cusack she started going to the back area after the accused's family moved back after the floods. 5. She was asked how she knew there were Christmas carols held on Saturday, 19 December 2009. She said it was because Christmas carols were on the week before Christmas, never on Christmas. She did not recall looking at a calendar to see what Saturday night fell in just before Christmas in 2009. 6. She agreed that her evidence was that LP stayed overnight on 26 December 2009, but could not recall whether she also stayed overnight on 27 December. She then agreed that LP stayed at the accused's house from 26 December to 1 January, when her husband picked her up, and then she returned on 1 January again. 7. In cross-examination, she was taken to her evidence on 19 March 2024 where she said the sequence of events was that she apologised to the accused after a conversation about him being an idiot in relation to their pool and driving erratically after the smacking incident involving LP. She then said the smack occurred after she had apologised, which she says correlates with her statement. TB 1. TB was born on 5 July 2002 and was 21 when she gave evidence in the trial. She attended [the local primary school]. AM became her best friend in year 5 because they played tennis together on Fridays and then would go back to AM's house. TB would not stay over. She recalls AM's friends, MC and BF being there. 2. The accused walked into the bedroom with his towel wrapped around him after he had got out of the shower. He told AM to go in for a shower, and then took his towel off and started "like, helicoptering his private part". There was another occasion where he was standing in his room with his door open which she says is directly opposite of AM's room, and he again took his white towel off and started "doing it and like pulled it in front of me". She was laying in AM's bed. 3. TB had Snapchat at the time which she accessed on an iPod. She was sent a Snapchat video of the accused's genital area and another one of his bum to her Snapchat account under her own name. She could see his head in these videos and received these videos from the accused's Snapchat account. The iPod was eventually taken off her and she was not allowed to go to the accused's house after this incident. 4. In cross-examination, TB said that she remembered having a meeting with the principal and police came to the school, but she did not remember anything else, other than receiving a call from the accused a year ago. She believes she had been to the principal's office because her parents contacted the school about the Snapchat incident. She thinks the Snapchat incident occurred in year 6, but police attended school and she went to the principal's office in September 2017, when she was in high school. Police took her iPod which had a number of rude images, including of the accused. She denied she was lying when she said she had readily available rude images of the accused on her iPod. She agreed when you open a Snap on Snapchat it disappears, but she was specifically sent the pictures through Snapchat. She said her father had seen the pictures. 5. Her evidence is that she agreed the Snapchats she received from the accused disappeared, but that her dad had seen them. She agreed the principal did not see the naked images of the accused. She then said the Snapchat from the accused was not the main reason she was in the principal's office, but that everything was discussed once she was there (which departed from her earlier evidence about the Snapchat being the reason for the principal's office meeting). 6. She agreed that she told police that the video she received from the accused on Snapchat was of pulling the white towel away from himself. After being taken through her statement (paragraphs 8 and 9), she agreed there was no mention of the accused "helicoptering" towards her, only that the accused would stand or talk to her wearing only his towel or leave the door open while he was naked in his room which she says was directly opposite to the accused's room, and he would look at her and laugh. 7. She denied that what she was sent by the accused on Snapchat was in fact a meme. She agreed a Snapchat deletes instantly after it is opened, but said she was certain that she took her iPhone up to her father who saw the image. She was then taken to her statement where she told police "I remember it was a few days later Dad picked me up from school and I told him (about the Snapchat from the accused) while I was in the car." It was suggested to her that this portion of her statement did not give the impression that she had run to her father when she received the Snapchat and showed it to him. She responded, "I ran up there to tell my dad. My dad was asleep, and I tried to wake my dad up, and my mum looked at me, because she's seen it, and she shook her head at me." She said she did not say this to police because she was in a bit of shock, and she was making her statement a few years later. She agreed the statement was read to her and she understood the requirement for it to be true and correct. It was suggested to her that the accused never sent her a video of himself. She said he did. FH 1. FH was born on 20 February 2003 and was 21 when she gave evidence in the trial. She attended [the local high school]. She came to know MC in year 2 or 3. They were in the same year and went to the same high school. FH left that school between year 11 and year 12. She met AM through MC, in year 7 or 8. They became good friends. She would go to AM's house and hang out with MC and AM over there. She would go on weekends or weekdays, 4 or 5 times a week. She was there probably more than MC. She would consistently sleep over there, starting in year 7. She would catch the bus home with AM regularly. She is still friends with AM and visited her recently. She recalled MC staying overnight at AM's house when she was there but not often. FH had Snapchat when she was younger. Her, AM and MC would communicate on Snapchat. She met BF through AM towards the end of year 7. There were times when her and BF were at AM's house together, but not often. There were times when her, MC, BF slept over AM's house together, but not often. 2. FH had the accused on Snapchat and Facebook messenger. She did recall receiving a message from the accused that had bothered her, but she did not initially recall what it was. After refreshing her memory from her statement, she gave evidence that she received a dark photo with a penis from the accused when she was year 8 or 9. She recalled mentioning in her statement that he said something like, "oops, that was for someone else." She said this was not something she was too traumatised by, and probably just blocked him. 3. She refreshed her memory a second time and gave evidence there were other occasions where she received an inappropriate image from the accused but did not recall how many times. She remembered not replying to any of it and thinking it was a mistake. 4. FH recalled 2 family holidays. The first holiday was a cruise with her family, including her mum and dad, AM's family, including her mum and dad and extended cousins, MC and her family. BF's mother and brother were there, but she could not recall if BF was there. The second family holiday was just her and AM's families and they went to Bali. 5. She said the extent of her memory regarding the accused around the bathroom was that "[AM's] bedroom was right across from the bathroom area, and the memory is him getting out of the shower and accidentally not having a towel on." 6. She agreed in cross-examination that she told police she recalled the accused getting out of the bathroom naked with no towel on, and him ducking straight back into the bathroom when she was about 13 or 14. She said this was the same occasion that she referred to in her earlier evidence. 7. FH agreed she would have been sent memes by the accused. She agreed the two inappropriate photos she received from the accused referred to in her statement were these memes. One of these photos was the dark room with a penis in it. The other one was similar. She has known the accused for a long time and never had an issue with him. He was a fun and 'happy go lucky' character. 8. She lost connection in year 8 and 9 with MC. MC was interested in sport and her and AM were not. DEFENCE CASE Evidence of the accused 1. The accused gave evidence that he met KG when he moved to [redacted]. He also became acquainted with KS/KF, BF's mother. GM and KG moved in together to their house where the offending is alleged to have occurred, a few weeks or months before their daughter AM was born, on 12 June 2002. The accused's birthday is on 13 June. 2. The accused described their property as a "fishing shack" when they first moved in, and they gradually added a kitchen, bathroom, laundry and garage. He discovered that his daughter, AM was diabetic before she started school. AM required injections in the morning and at night and a special diet. Her mother, KG, would monitor AM at night by setting alarms throughout the night to go test AM's finger. At first, KG tested AM 3 times a night but this tapered off as AM got older. 3. The accused was employed at [redacted]. Prior to moving into their house, he suffered a workplace injury and received a payout, and by the time AM was born he was unemployed. KG was employed and would leave for work before AM went to school. The accused would take AM to school. 4. The accused came to know AR when his daughter was in kindergarten and met AR's parents when they were renovating their house next door to his own. AR's family moved into that house in May 2008. AR started staying over quickly once his family got to know AR's family. AR's mother worked in another town and would drop AR off at his house and he would drop his daughter and AR off to school together, and sometimes pick them up together in the afternoons. If AR slept over, she would sleep in the lounge room. 5. The accused and KG's second child, SM, was born on 26 May 2010. When SM was first born, she was in their bedroom, and he was not sure how long this arrangement lasted. They eventually converted the playroom into SM's bedroom, and the garage was converted into a playroom. 6. He recalled that after the floods (March-April 2009) his family moved back to the house in November. He recalled at least one occasion where AR accompanied his family on holidays to the Gold Coast. He also recalled taking her on the holiday to Tiona caravan park in Forster, and on a trip to Manning Point. At Tiona caravan park in Forster, they stayed in a cabin. His brother and sister and their children also went on the Forster trip. They also stayed in a cabin on the Manning Point trip, and there was a spa there that was out of service that some army personnel were using it and made a mess. He did not get into this spa with AR at any time. 7. He was shown Exhibit 28, which are the school records from the local primary school which record his daughter AM's absence on 12 June 2009. AM was absent that day so they could go to the Gold Coast for her birthday, and AM did not have any other party that year. AR's family went on this birthday trip. She did have a class party in 2008, which was before the flood. He does not believe anyone slept over after this party. 8. He would see KS/KF and her children; BF and her two brothers, regularly. When they slept over, KS/KF would sleep on the lounge and the two boys would sleep on the other two single lounges. BF would sleep in AM's bed. He does not believe any of them slept in the playroom that later became SM's bedroom. 9. He recalled an occasion where he found a child that did not belong to him in his bed, when his daughter was in year 1. This child was AR. He also recalled that he discovered BF was asleep in his bed behind him, when his daughter and BF were about 7 years old. He denied doing anything to BF when she was in his bed. If he found a child asleep somewhere other than AM's bedroom, "they" would pick them up and take them to AM's bedroom but did not recall this ever happening. 10. AR slept over approximately once every 2 weeks. He denied licking AR's vagina. He denied every threatening AR. 11. AM was absent from school for 4 days starting 6 April after the floods in 2009. This absence is reflected in Exhibit 28, the school records. Between this date and the date of their return to their house, they stayed at some local cabins and some other places. Sometimes they could not stay at the local cabins because they were booked out, so the family would have gone to the Gold Coast. The accused's brother lived on the Queensland/ New South Wales border. He said that they did not always stay in the same unit or cabin at the local cabins, but the accommodation would pretty much be the same, with one storey and 2 bedrooms. The accused's mother and her partner occupied one room in the cabin, and he and KG slept in the other room. His daughter, AM, would sleep on a pull-out sofa in the lounge room. He said that every unit had an upstairs and downstairs, but these were separate units, and not townhouses. AR would stay when they were living at the local cabins. BF would stay, but only on rare occasions. AR would sleep on the pull-out bed, which was a double bed, in the lounge with AM. The accused denied doing anything to AR at the units in the local cabin. AR would never sleep over during the week. 12. He was shown Exhibit B (June 2009 holiday) and confirmed this is the trip for AM's birthday where AR's family went up, BF and her brothers, his sister and brother. They stayed at Paradise resort. He could not recall the nature of the rooms. LP went with her family. He denied putting a round vibrator-like object down AR's pants. 13. The accused was shown Exhibits C, D, E and F, which were pictures depicting AR, BF and his daughter AM, amongst others. He said these pictures were from a holiday that BF and AR went on without their parents (October 2009). They stayed at Agean apartments. AM, BF and AR all slept in one room in this holiday apartment. 14. He believed the falling out between his family and AR's family occurred in November 2009. LP took AR's place after the falling out. 15. There was an incident involving the shower, AR and his daughter. The girls were using up the hot water before his partner KG got home, so she could not take a shower. He told them to get out of the shower several times, and eventually yelled, and AR obviously got hurt and left to go home. The next day, AR's mother called him and had words with him which indicated her displeasure at him. After this, the friendship between AR and his daughter broke down, and he did not have any interactions with AR's family except for adverse ones. 16. His daughter played tennis, but he could not remember when she started. He did not remember LP playing tennis. He recalled LP and his daughter becoming friends towards the end of December 2009. Initially she came over for play dates, and then on weekends, and started sleeping over towards the end of 2009. His first recollection of LP sleeping over was around the time her father passed away in Darwin, around New Year's 2010. LP would have stayed when BF was staying over. BF stayed over with all the other girls, and knew all of them, and that BF would stay over regularly on weekends. 17. If 3 girls including his daughter were staying over, they would sleep in his daughter's bed, and that there was no pull-out bed underneath his daughter's bed. 18. Their house had only one bathroom, and no ensuite. If you were sitting on AM's bed, you could see the bathroom door, but that if you were sitting on the other end of her bed, all you could see is a wall. If the bathroom door was open, you could see part of the spa. The door of the bathroom and the door of AM's room was slightly askew. The accused's drawing of the layout of this house became Exhibit X. 19. He agreed that he sometimes took AR to school in the morning but denied doing anything sexual to her at this time or getting her to do something sexual to him. When she came over the in the mornings, she would sit down with his daughter and watch TV before he drove them to school. When he picked them up in the afternoon, they would "go off and do what they want to do and watch TV or play games or we'd be out the back at the pool." He denied ever asking AR to touch his penis. He denied ever having his mouth on AR's vagina or licking her in the bed. He denied asking AR to come into the shower with him when they were staying in the cabins. He says he did not ask her to wash him or wash his penis. 20. He denied ever taking AR out of the cabin and getting her to touch him or touching her, either at Tiona or Manning Point. He disagreed that all the kids would stay in one cabin with bunk beds when they were at either Tiona or Manning point. 21. He agreed LP's family came to his house on Boxing Day 2009 to exchange presents. He recalled it was the Christmas that his daughter received a quad bike. He did not recall whether LP went home with her parents. 22. His daughter did not have a party for her birthday in 2009, because they went to the Movie World in the Gold Coast for her birthday that year. LP did not sleep over for AM's birthday in 2009 and he did not believe she ever stayed over on a school day. He remembered she had gone home sick one time, and this was either the weekend his family and LP's family "split," or the weekend before it. He did not recall himself or his partner KG ever packing lunch for LP, or "going off at her" for not eating her lunch. 23. He would have caught crabs but would not have cooked any unless he had people there to eat them. He does not eat crabs himself. He denied ever telling LP that she was being disrespectful to him. He agreed he may have taken AR and LP on the boat to check for crab pots, but this would not have been normal because he usually went out at night to check the pots. 24. He agreed that he was "a bit of a drinker" on the weekends and would "clock off and go do whatever I do" because his partner KG would be there and take over. He would drink on Friday nights and Saturday nights. He would not generally drink on Sundays, unless he had Monday off as well. If he had people over for a barbeque on Sunday, he might drink 2 beers but that would be it. 25. He denied going to AM's room and doing sexual things to LP. He denied ever lying with LP on a blowup mattress in the lounge room. 26. He roughly guessed that the "split" with LP's family occurred at the end of February (2010), about a week or two after he assisted LP's family to install a pool at their house. He denied ever punching his fists while looking at LP during school assemblies. He denied ever doing this to AR. 27. When LP and his daughter stopped seeing each other, MC took up that gap. He met MC after the floods. He recalled that MC was living with her family, who had moved from the accused's town to a nearby town 15 minutes away, around the end of 2009 or start of 2010. 28. MC's mother had dropped off toys for his daughter because she had lost all hers in the flood. MC may have come over for play dates in the cabin when LP was still visiting, but he did not have a clear recollection of this. He believed that MC only started staying over in 2010 and did not believe she had stayed overnight in 2009. BF was coming over regularly in 2010, and he recalled MC and BF staying over together and sleeping with his daughter, when she was in year 2. MC stayed over regularly during this time. He described himself as friendly with MC's family and that her grandmother worked as his family's cleaner. 29. He agreed that he played games with BF and MC in the pool, for example, by throwing the girls into the pool by the armpits, but only when they were younger, around 2010 or 2011. He denied ever touching MC or BF in an inappropriate way in the pool. He denied ever touching their breasts or putting his fingers in MC's vagina. MC stopped coming to their house around about April 2017, because of the accused falling out with MC's mother, SB. 30. The accused was with a different partner, YB, in 2015, 2016, and early 2017. He met YB at the pub of a nearby town. He got back together with KG in 2017. In 2015 and early 2017 he was living and sleeping in a cabin on their property. His children were not aware of his living arrangements at this time, as he would come back into the house before they woke up and leave after they had gone to bed. 31. His daughter had a four-poster bed that was double or queen sized, and it was positioned up against the wall. This position never changed. His daughter would sleep closest to the door, and there was a bedside table on her side. His daughter slept on this side so KG could do blood tests on her finger at night and not wake up the other girls. There was never a single bed or trundle bed in his daughter's room. 32. He denied going into the bedroom at night when MC was sleeping and masturbating. He denied doing this with LP. He denied ejaculating in the presence of any of the girls. He always shut the door when he showered except if it was after 10.30pm or 11pm, he would maybe leave the door ajar. He said that he generally wore a dressing gown which was black or a white one with a pair of boxers around the house at night. He denied ever wearing the dressing gown with nothing underneath. 33. It's possible he masturbated in the doorway of the bathroom and filmed himself when the girls were not there. 34. BF would come over and watch him play games on the computer, but he denied ever placing BF between his legs when he was on the computer. He denied placing his finger in her vagina around that table. He denied this in cross-examination as well. 35. FH "came into the picture" around the same time as MC because they were already friends. FH lived in a nearby town. He also remembered TB. TB went to the same school as his daughter, but he denied that they would play tennis together every week. He agreed TB came over his house. He denied sending TB a picture of his penis on Snapchat. He denied sending MC a video of himself masturbating. He said he was in the habit of sending 'memes' to people, and some of these were rude. 36. He was aware as of August 2015, SB would monitor her daughter, MC's Facebook messages and other social media. He denied sending MC inappropriate images other than the one referred to in Exhibit 8. He denied sending MC images of his penis or videos of him masturbating. 2021 Snapchat messages with AR 1. He agreed the Snapchat messages occurred 4 or 5 days after the phone call with AR on 29 January 2021. The transcript of the call became Exhibit 2 in the trial and the Snapchat messages Exhibit 3. He said he did not recognise the voice of AR on the call. The last time he had a conversation with her was 2009. At the point of the first message, (described as a reindeer symbol) the accused said he did not know who he was talking to. Some pleasantries were exchanged. The other person asked him if they could talk on the phone. He said that he sent the following message, "Not ATM (at the moment), but still trying to figure out who I'm talking to, and is if this is you, and if you here to cause trouble or get a helping hand" with the purpose of fishing out whether he was being scammed. He understood a scam to be when someone pretended to be someone they were not and tried to get him to invest money down the track. He offered a helping hand to the other person in order to fish out whether he was being scammed. AR sent a message at 7.40pm. He responded at 8.27pm because he was with customers. AR sent a picture of herself as proof. He agreed it looked like her but still was not sure. He showed the picture to his colleagues at the cab rank and explained someone was trying to blackmail him. 2. At 9.10pm there was a message sent to AR which reads, "I was I love with you back then and just couldn't be around you even tho I liked it so much hence our eventual split". The accused denied sending this message. He believed it was sent by an acquaintance of his called "Grubb," who was also a taxi-driver. He said Grubb was listed as a contact in his phone. The accused explained that his phone came to be in the possession of his colleagues when he gave it to them. They were "checking out" the photo of AR. He says he did not check to see if they had written anything on his phone and found out about the messages when he was served with paperwork from Broadbeach police. 3. The accused was asked why he told AR during the Snapchat exchange that "the legals will supply you with a sum of money and a form to sign." He said that he did not have any "legals" at this time and sent this message thinking that someone was trying to blackmail him. He said several things had happened to him since he and KG put their house on the market. 4. He had contact with BF up until his arrest. He drove her to her school formal and supplied her with a dress and everything else that she needed. He says she stayed at their house in the Gold Coast between 2017 and 2021. He agreed he acted as a father to BF. He denied doing anything sexual to BF. 5. He denied smacking LP. He disagreed he was in control of LP when she stayed over and that she had to obey his instructions. He said he was a laid-back parent. He saw FH regularly up to the point of his arrest. 6. He denied asking MC and BF to French kiss each other but did recall telling them that what they were saying about Lesbians was not nice, and that "any of youse could be gay." He said that he heard this conversation while he was checking on the kids with another person. He said that MC then said, "yes BF we could be gay. Let's kiss," and did peck BF on the lips, but she was just being funny as she would. He did not promote the kiss. 7. He agreed that he had walked into the garage naked on one occasion. He said this was in circumstances where he heard a noise "out the back," in the garage where the kids played. He was in bed. He said that he raced there and looked outside the garage window to see if anyone was outside. All the kids were asleep. He was concerned that someone was trying to get into the garage. He remembered MC waking up when he was at the window. He did not normally sleep naked but said that he might have been having sex at this time. He said that MC, BF, BF's mother and two brothers were staying over this night. His daughter was also sleeping in the garage. 8. It was unusual for him to walk around the house in a towel, and he would usually wear a towel on with swimmers underneath after being in the pool. 9. His daughter took control of her diabetes, including drawing insulin when she was around 14. Before this, she did not require medication at night other than insulin. She was not given medication just before bed and she never had sleeping medication. 10. He never set up a mattress in the lounge room. If BF's mother SB and her two boys stayed, they would sleep on the single-seat recliners that could lay back. Cross-examination of the accused 1. The accused said that his daughter sometimes required an injection while she was at school, but this was very rare. He said his daughter was not a heavy sleeper. His partner, KG would set 2 alarms so she could check up on AM throughout the night. If KG thought AM was okay to last through the night, she would cancel the next alarm. KG was not a heavy sleeper, and he would not wake up during the night-time checks. KG sometimes worked on the weekends, and he would take care of AM. Once KG got home, he would "clock off". 2. He would drop his daughter off to school by parking the car and then walking her to her class. He did this all through primary school. 3. Both his daughters are unaware that he and KG were separated, and agreed they were holding out a pretence to their children by staying together until the kids went to sleep. He and KG have maintained their relationship publicly, but he has told a couple of AM's friends' parents. He said that he believed he was still separated from KG on the 2016 cruise trip, but they were staying in the same room. In 2017 he moved back into the house with KG. 4. He agreed that he was wearing nothing underneath his towel when AR's mother came over to drop off some kind of gadget. He said that he had just got out of the shower. He disagreed with the suggestion that AR's mother took her home and said AR's mother went to work after this. He and AR's mother had a routine every morning. AR's mother would drop her off, AR would come in, and he would lock the back door and put the key on top of the fridge so the girls could not get out to the backyard and pool. He would set the kids up in the loungeroom, and then go and have a shower. On this occasion he had a shower and went back to the bedroom, and the kids came in. He said AR's mother never came from the front door and used the back door. The back door was locked, so she came to the front door and knocked. He answered the door in his towel, and he said that she jokingly asked, "what's going on here?" he explained, and that was it. 5. It was commonplace for him to shower in the morning when AR was at his home and walk from the bathroom to his bedroom in a towel with nothing underneath. He agreed that he was comfortable around the kids in his house but was always modest. He denied he used the opportunity in the bathroom at night to expose himself to the girls. He denied using the opportunity of walking from the bathroom to the bedroom after a shower to expose himself to the girls. 6. He agreed that the children were in his care, and that he saw himself as a father figure to them. 7. Sometimes he sat beside the girls when they were playing games on the computer. He was sure they never sat in front of him. He denied saying this because of BF's allegations concerning the chair incident. 8. He was then shown a video depicting BF sitting on a chair, playing on the computer, and him standing behind her. His hands touched her shoulders. He then put his leg over the back of her body and sat down directly behind her on the chair. It was put to him that what was shown in the video, (which became Exhibit 32) was not an unusual occurrence and that what he said earlier in his evidence about being sure that no child had ever sat in front of him on a chair was a lie. He said it was not a lie because he was not wearing a robe in the video and BF had alleged he was during the relevant incident. Ms Crown said that he was asked whether or not a child had ever sat in front of him, not about whether he was wearing a robe. 9. At the stage he was asked, he believed no child had sat in front of him, but he did remember this occasion after seeing Exhibit 32. He agreed that he did muck around with kids all the time. He said he denied it because he believed it to be true. He denied knowing about the video in Exhibit 32 before he gave evidence. When Ms Crown put to him that he was just trying to minimise his physical contact with the girls, he responded, "I've actually never seen that video…" and denied he knew the video had been taken. There was a short break. When he resumed his evidence, and Ms Crown again asked about his knowledge of the video, he said that he was made aware of the video recently. 10. The cabin on their property had a bathroom, so when he was staying there 2015 to early 2017, he did not need to leave to use the bathroom in the house. 11. He did not recall having a late birthday party for his daughter after they moved back to their house after the flood. He said that they already had a party on the Gold Coast at Movie World that year, and they had paid $45 a head for everyone to go there. He agreed they entertained a lot at their home but said the only time they had a large group of kids over was June the previous year (2008). He also agreed they had a big birthday party for AM every year. 12. He did not want to talk about his current relationship status with KG. The accused denied emailing a copy of the police brief or charge sheet to KG. After being shown a series of text messages between himself and KG (Exhibit 31), including a message he sent KG on 21 November 2021 saying, "I sent you that last email with the brief." He denied sending KG information about the November 2021 charges and said the only information he had received was from Broadbeach (police). He agreed that he may have discussed the case over the phone with KG while he was in custody. He said that he had a conversation with her about what she told KS/KF, BF's mother. He also said he spoke to her about getting information from her phone to prove "what times things were." 13. He agreed he would drink on Friday and Saturday nights during sleepovers. He occasionally drank until he blacked out. He denied losing memories of what happened on the weekend because of drinking. Before the bar outside was installed he kept alcohol in a kitchen cupboard. 14. He agreed that AR slept over their house before her family moved into their house in May 2008, when they were renovating. He agreed he left AR and AM to watch TV in the morning and went to shower. He denied asking AR to come into the shower to touch his penis on one of these mornings. He denied asking her to wash him. He denied she used her hands to wash his erect penis. He denied using his tongue to lick her vagina during a sleepover in 2008. He denied putting a vibrator into her genital area on the Gold Coast trip. 15. The accused denied the possibility that AR stayed at his sister's cabin when they were staying at Manning Point. He denied taking her outside a cabin and touching her on her vagina and making her touch his penis. He denied inserting his fingers into AR's vagina in his bedroom. He denied putting her hand on his erect penis in a spa on holidays. He denied touching AR inappropriately. He denied calling AR a spoilt brat. He denied telling her to "fuck off" as he said he never swore at any kids. He denied following AR and LP in the school grounds and staring at them and shaking his fist. 16. He denied that LP stayed over before the Gold Coast holiday (2009). He denied touching and kissing LP and doing the things she described and telling her it was normal for boys and girls. He denied there was another occasion he touched, kissed and did things to LP and told her the next morning, not to "tell anyone about this or you won't have a mum and a dad". He denied after Christmas 2008 pulling LP's pants down and using his fingers in her vagina and his tongue on her vagina. He denied rubbing his penis on her vagina. He denied masturbating to the point of ejaculation using a towel. 17. He did not recall LP staying 3 nights in a row after they moved back into the property after the floods. He denied preparing a school lunch for LP and said he has never prepared a single lunch for the kids, because KG does this. He agreed that it was possible KG prepared lunch for LP if she stayed overnight. He denied he told LP not to be disrespectful when she did not eat the lunch prepared. He denied he placed fingers in her vagina and telling her she would learn not to be disrespectful. 18. He agreed that LP's father brought her on a motorbike on one occasion. He denied that when she was asleep on the mattress, he took his pants off, pushed her shorts and underwear to her ankles put his penis on the outside of her vagina. It was suggested to him that this was the occasion LP said she felt sick and ended up going home. The accused said LP did go home sick on one occasion, but he believes it was because they ate too much Pizza. 19. He denied telling LP that, "You no longer have a dad to protect you anymore" after her biological father died. 20. He denied kissing LP's neck and putting his fingers in her vagina or using his tongue on her vagina when she was on a single bed in AM's room, and BF and his daughter were sleeping. He denied masturbating into a tissue from his daughter's bed side table. 21. He denied smacking LP on the bottom for clogging the toilet. 22. He agreed MC would often stay 2 nights over a weekend when she moved to the nearby high school. He denied pleasuring himself while touching MC's leg in his daughter's bedroom. He denied that there was a time when he was videoing himself masturbating naked in the bathroom when the door was not fully closed. He agreed he had filmed his hands on his penis on his phone. He said the door would have been closed. He denied sending a video of himself stroking his penis in the shower to MC via Snapchat. He denied being in a group chat with TB or sending her a video of his penis via Snapchat. 23. He denied touching MC's bottom in the swimming pool and placing his fingers in her vagina inside her pants. 24. He denied that there was a time in the garage when he suggested that MC and BF should kiss. 25. He agreed that his daughter would sometimes leave her friends in her room and sleep in their bed. He agreed that BF and AM were in his bed. He agreed AR and AM were in his bed at least once. He denied pressing his penis into BF in his bed. He denied putting his hands on hers and making her touch his penis. 26. He denied rubbing BF's chest area and her vagina above her clothes while she was playing with the computer. He denied rubbing her genital area below her clothing while she was seated between his legs while he was wearing a white robe. He denied rubbing his erect penis on her back and then placing his hand on her vagina under her clothes and inserting a finger inside her. 27. He denied placing his penis on BF's face while she was lying down in the garage. He denied going into his daughter's bedroom, wearing a white robe, where BF was sleeping but AM was not there, and then licking BF's vagina. He denied that he touched BF inappropriately on-and-off until she turned 12. He denied staring at BF in his daughter's room when he was naked. He denied groping her under the water in the pool more than once over her swimmers. He denied there was an occasion when BF was present when he was touching MC in the pool. 28. He was curious rather than concerned about the call between AR and himself in 2021. He said that he had responded "not really" when AR asked him if he had time to talk because he was probably busy. He said he did not know what AR was talking about when she said, "why did you pick me? Why not anyone else?" He denied being scared about what AR was calling about. 29. The accused denied being concerned about having caused AR trouble because of things he did with her when she was little at the time of the Snapchat message exchange depicted in Exhibit 3. He denied the helping hand offer was to keep her quiet. The accused was taken to where AR messaged, "Why did you do things to me when I was little that have upset me? I want to know why it's happened. I need to be given some answers," and said that AR could have been asking about why she got "the boot" from his house. He said he had referred to "legality issues" in his message because he did not know he was corresponding with the "kid next door" and presumed someone was trying to blackmail him. He agreed he was the first person in the conversation to offer money. He said he was "fishing" by referencing a form for AR to sign. 30. He was being facetious when he messaged his daughter that he hoped her friend "liked naked," after she warned him that her friend was staying over, in case he was wearing only a towel. These messages became Exhibit 33. He said it was not common for him to walk around the house in a towel after he had a shower. Re-examination 1. The accused was taken to messages between himself and KG in Exhibit 31. He believes they were corresponding about a power outage at their house as a result of somebody stealing the cable that earthed out the complex. Almost every unit had fire inside. He believed the electrician had let himself into the unit while he was sleeping. He believed that when he said "I sent you the last email with a brief" he was referring to the claim for electricity. He said he had not seen the brief of evidence by 21 November 2021. He had not engaged a solicitor by then. 2. He said that the photograph of the glass dining table at the back of the property is from the post-flood period. Before the floods there was a wooden table and chairs. 3. He had no recollection of LP sleeping over on a school night. The accused's brother, SRM 1. His family, which includes his wife and 3 children, 1 boy and 2 girls aged 2, 4 and 6, went on holiday to Tiona Park with the accused. They were staying in cabins. AR was there. She was aged 5 or 6 at the time. His sister and her family, his mother and stepfather were also there. He said that there would have been about 20 kids in attendance. All the families did everything together, including going to the pool and spa. 2. Everyone had their own accommodation. His accommodation was open plan and had a kitchenette, bunk bed and a table with chairs. There was a Queen bed that he and his wife slept on, and the kids slept on the bunk beds. There were no toilets in the cabin, and the amenities block was located nearby. There was a pool and spa. He said that the children would not sleep all together in one cabin because there was such a wide range in their ages. 3. BF and her brothers were always at the accused's house. Every time he went there were new friends. The accused's interaction with these children did not cause him any concerns. He had spoken to his own children about the allegations against the accused, and he has no concerns. 4. He described the accused's house as having a party atmosphere. He saw the accused drinking if KG was home. Cross-examination 1. He thinks that he went to Tiona Park with the accused's family twice. The second time he stayed at different cabins on the other side. On both occasions they all used the pool and spa. 2. He said it was not possible that AM and her friend slept in their cabin if they were watching a movie or playing with his kids. It was possible that his middle daughter slept in another cabin with AM and her friend, but not his two other kids. It was possible the kids switched around and slept in various places, and he cannot remember exactly who slept where given how long ago it was. 3. He agreed the accused was comfortable with kids. He has not seen children sitting close to him, on the same chair as him, sitting in his lap or playing with him in the pool. He said the accused rarely got into the pool and if he did, it was generally after the kids were done. He then agreed the accused occasionally was in the pool, mucking around and picking the kids up and throwing them. KG, the accused's partner 1. KG is the accused's former partner. They formed a relationship when she was 23. She is now 53. AM was born 12 June 2002. They eventually moved into the house where the allegations are said to have occurred and renovated it. They put the pool in when AM was about 2. The barbecue area was put in towards the end of 2009 or 2010. 2. She became aware that AM was diabetic just before she turned 4. AM's blood glucose levels had to be checked every 3 hours. She required insulin injections multiple times a day, depending on her levels. She checked AM's levels using a blood test on her finger before school, after school, before dinner, at midnight, 3am and 6am, but times she tested varied based on AM's blood glucose levels. AR 1. When AM started school KG was working as the administration manager of a rehabilitation service 30 minutes away from where they lived. AR would visit most days. The accused dropped AR and his daughter off to school. 2. KG started working somewhere else in May 2014, where the work was variable and weekend work was offered. 3. After the floods, they stayed at the local caravan park and the local golf club cabins. The golf club cabins were two-bedroom units with a bathroom, combined loungeroom and dining room, and a kitchen. The bedrooms were separate. Her and the accused slept in one room, and the accused's mother and her partner slept in the other room. AM slept on a fold-out lounge. AR slept with AM on the lounge if she stayed over. She did not recall any other children staying over when they were at the local cabins. They did not stay in the same unit because the local cabins had existing bookings, and they were there temporarily. 4. KG said the bathroom could be seen from AM's bedroom doorway. 5. Her and the accused's bedroom had no ensuite. There was no door from their bedroom to the bathroom. 6. She recalls AR's visits stopped. AR was told something about the accused, KG did not speak to AR's parents after this, and their relationship broke down. LP started staying after. This was around 2010. Trips to the Gold Coast 1. KG recalled them going to Surfers Paradise to celebrate AM's birthday (June 2009). AR's family and BF's family were there. They stayed in accommodation which was one open room with a Queen bed and a set of bunk beds. 2. They went to the Gold Coast a second time for a week in October 2009. KG's mother, AR and BF stayed with them on this trip. On this trip their accommodation had two separate rooms, the girls slept in one room, KG had one room, and KG's mother slept on the lounge. LP's family also went on this trip. Moving back after the floods 1. KG said they moved back into the house a month before Christmas. They started building a barbeque area and bar. It was not finished by Christmas. People would sit on the back veranda and have drinks. Holidays to Tiona and Manning Point 1. AR accompanied them to on holidays to Tiona and Manning Point. Tiona was a large holiday complex divided by a main road – one side was beachside accommodation, and one side was lakeside. KG and the accused's family stayed on the lakeside, and the others, including the accused's mother, his two brothers and their families and his sister and her family stayed on the beach side. 2. Their accommodation at Tiona was just one open room. Everyone had their own cabin. She recalled AR staying with them at Tiona on a long weekend. She did not allow her daughter or AR to sleep in someone else's cabin. The pool was operational most of the time at Tiona. The spa was not operational at all for their whole trip because some army people went to the toilet in the spa and it had to be drained. She said the spa worked on the first day. She said the accused did not take the two girls to the pool by himself. 3. Their accommodation on the Manning Point holiday was basic. There was a bunk bed, double bed and kitchenette. The accused's brother and his family were there, as well as AR and KS/KF and her family, including BF. LP 1. She said AR slept over many times, but LP had not slept over before their relationship with AR's family broke down. LP had only stayed for playdates up to this point that KG and LP's mother organised. She recalled LP stayed over for the first time just before the incident involving her biological father in Darwin. She was shown Exhibit O, an image of her, the accused and LP's mother dated 27 December 2009, and said that LP stayed over their house from the date of this picture to New Year's Day. 2. KG was never told about LP's allergies. She would have asked LP's mother about this kind of thing. LP never stayed on school nights because her mum was very particular. She never stayed two nights in a row. She stopped staying over in 2010. 3. There was only one bed in her daughter's bedroom. Their second daughter, SM, slept in a cot in their room. She moved into her own room when she was 2, which had been the playroom. The garage became the playroom. 4. LP's relationship with her daughter broke down after the accused helped LP's father with their swimming pool. KG said some derogatory things about LP's mother with LP in the car, which LP repeated to her mother. 5. KG recalled that LP went home sick one night, after the girls had gone to bed. It was still evening. LP came to her when she was in bed and told her she was feeling unwell. She felt her forehead and contacted LP's mother. She believed LP's mother came to pick her up. MC 1. KG came to know MC when her parents came to the local golf club cabins and brought toys for her daughter, after hers were destroyed in the floods. KG became friendly with MC's mother, SB. AM and MC first went to school together. When MC changed schools, she started visiting their house for play dates, and then eventually sleepovers, starting around 2012, before high school. KG would organise them. KG became good friends with SB. MC and AM went to the same high school. 2. MC would sleep over for more than one night. Sometimes BF was there as well. They would sleep in AM's bedroom. BF's brothers would sleep in the loungeroom. Once they bought beds for the garage, BF's brothers would sleep there. BF's mother would sleep either on the lounge or spare beds in the garage. KG said her daughter, MC and BF would not sleep in the garage at all. 3. She recalled an incident involving SB's husband at a party at their house. MC did not visit as regularly after this. 4. The only medication her daughter took was insulin, there was no medication that would make her sleepy or drowsy. The accused's arrest 1. In March 2021 KG became aware the accused had some matters. He showed her some lengthy court documents from his solicitor. They were in relation to AR. She was shown Exhibit 31, messages between her and the accused dated between 20 and 22 November 2021, but did not recall what the conversation related to. She said she has never been emailed a brief by the accused. The only document she has seen is a hard copy of a statement by the accused, sent to him by his solicitor before he was arrested, in December 2021. Cross-examination of KG 1. Her and the accused were separated before he went into custody. They first separated around 2016 or 2017. Their daughters are unaware of their separation. 2. KG agreed she has had telephone calls with the accused in custody. They discussed obtaining photographs and other evidence for his lawyers to assist in his defence. She chose not to make a statement to police. She said she was here to tell the truth. 3. She was shown Exhibit L, a picture dated 8 January 2014, which depicted her younger daughter SM's furniture in her bedroom. She was unable to recall why SM's furniture was there. 4. KG did not recall LP staying for dinner, other than when she was staying with them overnight. She believed LP attended AM's big class party in 2008. They had invited the whole class and teacher. She did not recall LP's mother picking her up from this party. After this party LP started coming over occasionally. She said that between kindergarten and year 1, LP only came over their house for play dates, and disagreed that she stayed overnight during this time. KG says she started sleeping over towards the end of 2009. She did not recall LP coming over when they were staying in the local cabins after the floods. She specifically remembered AR staying with them when they were there. She said these cabins were two levels, but each level was a separate unit. 5. She agreed LP stopped coming over before AM's birthday in 2010. She said that it was possible that there was a dinner with LP where crabs were cooked, but she did not have a specific recollection. 6. She agreed that between kindergarten and high school, the position of AM's bed changed from against the wall to having a gap between the bed and wall. 7. She recalled an occasion where BF was staying overnight, and AM and BF came to sleep in her and the accused's bed. She agreed that BF slept at her feet, but disagreed that BF started off in the position between the accused and AM, with her on the other side of AM. She disagreed that AM would come sleep in her and the accused's bed and leave her friends asleep in her bedroom. She said AR never slept in their bed with AM. 8. She has not seen BF sitting on the accused's lap while they were playing on the computer. She has not seen him naked in the garage while children were staying there. She does not recall him ever leaving their room naked to check on something while children were staying at their house. 9. The accused would occasionally wear a white robe around the house. Sometimes he wore boxers with no shirt. Sometimes he was in a towel after the shower when girls were staying there. 10. On the first day they stayed at Tiona Park, the spa and pool there were operational. Both were used by people in her group. She disagreed that AR slept or switched around for a period of time with other kids staying in other cabins. 11. She disagreed that there was a single bed or mattress in AM's room when people stayed over. There was no mattress when LP stayed over. Re-examination of KG 1. She was asked how she became aware that BF was in her bed. She said that she woke up and could not move because BF was on her legs. AM was on the accused's legs. Her and the accused laughed. She said this is the only occasion BF was in their bed. SJ, the accused's sister 1. The accused's sister, SJ went on holidays with the accused's family. She is a foster carer. She had children in her care when the accused visited her, or their families went on holidays together. She has asked the girls that have been in her care whether the accused has molested them. They say he has not. 2. She saw BF, LP, MC, and AR often at the accused's place. 3. She recalled going on holiday with the accused and his family to Tiona. She went with her own 2 children and 2 others who were in her care at the time. She also recalled her brother SRM and his wife and their children, her other brother TM and his wife and their children, her mother and her grandmother going on this holiday. She said that there were no occasions where the parents would let all the kids sleep together in one unit, because there was no room. She said people did not go off in small groups and were together for the pool and lunches, because the idea of going on this holiday was to spend time with each other. She remembers AR on this holiday. 4. She also recalled going on a holiday weekend to the Gold Coast for AM's birthday. She went with her children and husband. She remembers AR there. 5. SJ stayed at the accused's house when she was visiting. She recalled AM's friends sleeping there overnight. She remembered BF and LP staying while she was there. She would sleep on the lounge with her children – her own as well as those in her care. When they got bedding in the garage, she would sleep there with her children. She said that from the accused's loungeroom, you could not see someone coming in and out of the bathroom or the accused's bedroom, because of the shape of the hallway. Cross-examination 1. SJ agreed in cross-examination that when she slept in the loungeroom, she would sleep on the lounge and her children would sleep on two big double camping beds on the loungeroom floor. 2. She agreed that the spa was operational at Tiona the first day and night that they were there. SUBMISSIONS 1. I have had the benefit of submissions from the Crown and Ms Cusack. I have considered these submissions and given them the weight I think they deserve. Crown submissions 1. The Crown submitted that this was a case where the reliability of each complainant would be a significant aspect of the defence's argument. She submitted that if I had reasonable doubt as to whether the crown has proved all the essential elements for any count, I would find the accused not guilty of that count. In arriving at this decision in respect of each count, I would look to whether the evidence of the relevant complainant could be relied upon. If I form the view that a particular complainant is not a reliable witness, and I was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the acts alleged, I would exclude this from any tendency reasoning that I might engage in in my consideration of matters generally. 2. The Crown accepted that were I to accept the complainant's evidence on the balance of probabilities, but I was unable to reject the evidence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, I would find the accused not guilty, no matter how suspicious I was of his conduct. Admissions 1. The Crown relied on what they say are partial admissions made by the accused of a general sense of wrongdoing in respect of AR. She submitted that whilst the accused makes denials during the pretext call with AR, he does make admissions in the messages exchanged immediately after. She submitted that I would find the accused lied in his evidence about the circumstances in which these admissions were made. Complaint 1. She submitted that I would reject any proposition by the defence that the complainants colluded or that their evidence is contaminated. She pointed out that each of them complained separately, in different ways, in different circumstances and that their evidence did not have qualities of contamination or collusion. 2. She submitted specifically in the case of AR, the first complainant, she told her boyfriend, then her sister, then her parents and eventually the police, once she was ready. At each stage she gave different levels of information - disclosing the complaint in brief terms to her boyfriend and giving slightly more detail to her sister and parents. She submitted that AR was not eager to bring the complaint to the attention of police. The Crown case was that there was no evidence to suggest the complainants were deliberately lying, let alone colluding with each other to do so. 3. She reiterated that there was no contamination between the complainant's evidence. 4. She submitted that I would not find that LP's evidence was contaminated, given she only disclosed the allegations after speaking to her mother on the phone, as both LP and her mother gave evidence that her mother did not tell her what the police wanted to speak to her about, only that they wanted to speak to her in relation to the accused. She submitted that I would accept that LP immediately and spontaneously started crying, vaguely disclosed the allegations, and indicated she believed her mother would be disappointed in her without any knowledge of what about the accused the police wished to speak to her about. LP made her statement after this call. 5. She submitted that MC independently complained to her friend after an unrelated triggering incident. MC was reluctant to tell her mother. 6. She pointed me to the differences between MC and BF's evidence, particularly, the fact that BF did not mention the kissing incident in her evidence and MC had, which she says suggests they were unaware of the nature of each other's complaints. She reminded me of the direction I would give myself about BF's silence on this issue and any doubts this may cause me to have, without speculating about what BF's evidence would have been in relation to kissing incident. 7. She submitted that I would accept BF's evidence as true, and that she was having flashbacks that she seemed not to believe, which was understandable human behaviour given her closeness with the accused and his family, and everything he had done for her and her family. She pointed me to BF's evidence where she said despite her prior self-denial, she knew she gave evidence of real memories. She also pointed me to BF's evidence that she knew AR had said something about the accused licking her vagina and sexual complaints generally, but that she did not know details about LP's complaint or that it was LP who complained. Tendency 1. She submitted that I would be satisfied that the accused had a sexual interest in young girls aged 6 to 14, and acted upon this interest, and I would use this evidence in my consideration of whether the accused is guilty of each count on the indictment. 2. She submitted that the accused took advantage of his daughter's friends to often, but not always, act in the manner alleged when they were in his company, in or out of his home. 3. She said that it was not the Crown's case that he acted in this way with every child other than his own or that the offending occurred in the exact same way against each complainant. Why I would accept AR's evidence 1. Ms Crown submitted that I would accept AR's evidence as she was emotional in the way one might expect of a person giving a truthful recount of memories. She pointed me to certain points of her evidence where she became visibly upset. 2. She submitted I would not find AR was an unreliable witness on everything, despite her difficulty recalling the time of events and, even if I accepted she had merged her memories of the two Gold Coast trips into one, given AR's age at the time. 3. Regarding AR's omission about events in relation to Count 3 in her evidence, before refreshing her statement and then recounting those events, she submitted that the operation of AR's memory here accords with the directions I gave myself to the effect that a history will not be the same every time it is recorded. 4. She accepted that the defence would say this was a significant event that AR would have remembered well, but submitted AR was visibly and viscerally upset when giving evidence, stressed, that AR herself said her memory was jumbled and disorientated, and that people may have a memory but forget to mention or recall it when necessary. She submitted that I would accept, from the manner in which she gave evidence after refreshing her statement, that she gave evidence of a memory that she recalled. 5. She submitted that in assessing AR's credibility, I would take into account her demeanour when giving evidence at particular points. She pointed me to the fact that AR only recalled one occasion where the accused inserted his fingers in her vagina and submitted this suggested she was not prone to exaggeration. She submitted AR was honest about events she did not recall. When asked why AR could not recall this one occasion of the accused's fingers in her vagina when she was giving evidence, she submitted AR was stressed and should be afforded some benefit for the impact of this distress on her mind, and further, that AR was relatively young when giving her evidence and this was not an easy thing to bring up. 6. In relation to AR's evidence surrounding the cabin, Ms Crown pointed out that AR made appropriate concessions that her memory was jumbling and disorientated, but submitted that AR clearly remembers being on bunk beds with other children and being taken to another room outside of the cabin. Ms Crown disagreed that the accused's brother SRM's evidence that all the kids would not sleep in one cabin because of the wide age range presented a problem for AR's evidence, because AR's memory was not that she was sleeping with all the kids in a separate cabin, but that she was in a bunk bed with other kids. She submitted AR's memory is to the requisite standard that I can rely on. 7. She submitted that I would not accept the accused's evidence in respect of the spa, given the conflict between his evidence and that of KG, his sister SJ and his brother SRM. Ms Crown submitted that the key point was that the accused was lying about whether or not he was in the spa. 8. She submitted AR's inability to remember events like the second Gold Coast trip suggests she is being truthful. She said that if there were errors in AR's memory, they were understandable given her age and the number of holidays she went on with the accused's family, and it was not unusual that what she really recalled was waking up to a buzzing item in her underpants. Regarding this incident, she anticipated the defence would submit there was a big difference between a lipstick sized vibrator, which was AR's recollection, and a dildo, which her parents recall being told about, and submitted that this discrepancy was a misunderstanding of an already vague description [that AR gave her parents]. 9. She submitted that it was never put to AR that the Snapchat picture she sent the accused during the 2021 exchange (Exhibit 3) was not the one she identified, but a raunchy picture. She submitted that the accused's evidence in respect of the raunchy picture was implausible and accordingly I would reject it. 10. Lastly, she submitted that I would accept AR's evidence and the evidence of the other complainants in respect of AM's bed being flush against the wall, as her agreeing with Ms Cusack about the bed staying in one position was an error. Why I would accept LP's evidence. 1. Ms Crown submitted that LP had a clear memory of when she started to spend time at the accused's home. 2. She submitted that I would accept LP's evidence that the accused and KG were her guardians while she was at their home, that she had to do as they said and the accused's evidence that he regarded himself as a father figure to the children in his care, and accordingly I would be satisfied that she was under his authority for the relevant counts (19,21,24, 26). 3. Regarding the counts involving an age component involving LP, the Crown pointed me to LP's evidence that she stopped visiting the accused's house in early 2010, her mother's evidence that she stopped in easter that year, and KG's evidence that she stopped coming around May that year. 4. She accepted LP was the only witness to give evidence that there was a single mattress under the bed, and I could either accept this aspect of LP's evidence, reject it, or consider whether it affects her credibility in relation to the essential elements of the offence alleged to have occurred on the single mattress. 5. She submitted that LP did not disclose what she says happened to her because of the accused's threat, and pointed out LP was really emotional when she recalled it. 6. Ms Crown accepted that I could not rely on LP's evidence in respect of when the accused's family moved back to their house after the floods, but that I could accept her evidence in relation to her 3-night stay at their house for AM's birthday in 2009, given her specific memories about that celebration. She submitted whether or not I accept LP had crab for dinner on the first night she stayed, I would find that LP had clear memories about not eating food the next day and the accused telling her this was disrespectful, which became a component of the subsequent offence, and that she had clear memories of leaving the party. 7. Regarding Count 28, she pointed me to LP's evidence that there was a blow-up mattress on the floor of the loungeroom, which she submitted accorded with the evidence given by the accused's sister in the defence case but denied by the accused, who says the loungeroom was never set up in that way. 8. She submitted that LP's demeanour when she gave evidence about the attempted insertion of the penis in her vagina (Count 28) indicated she was recalling a memory of an event that occurred. 9. She submitted that in regard to the discrepancy between the Crown and defence cases about the timeline of LP's involvement with the accused, I would accept the evidence of LP and her mother that LP was at the accused's house throughout 2008, in light of AR's evidence that she sometimes saw LP before she stopped going to the accused's house at the end of 2009, which accorded with LP's evidence that she started staying over again in year 2. 10. She submitted that if I were to reject all or part of LP's mother's evidence as incredible, I would still accept LP's evidence. Why I would accept MC's evidence 1. She pointed to MC's evidence regarding the bathroom incident, that MC saw the bathroom from AM's bedroom, saw the accused filming himself and looking at her while he was filming himself. 2. She said that the evidence that MC told her mother, SB, that she had not received anything inappropriate from the accused on snapchat did not mean that this had not occurred, only that she did not wish to disclose it to her mother at that stage. She submitted SB's evidence that she only monitored her daughters snapchat "at times" was notable, and in any event, Snapchat is difficult to monitor because of the instantaneous nature of the messages. 3. She submitted that there was nothing in the nature of MC's evidence that would make me question her reliability. Ms Crown says I would infer from MC's demeanour and manner of giving evidence that she recalled things which happened to her. She said MC was not phased in cross-examination. She submitted that I would give little weight to the portion of MC's evidence where she was unable to answer, as the defence case was not put to her in full. Why I would accept BF's evidence. 1. Ms Crown recognised that the aspect of BF's evidence about believing that her memories in relation to the accused were only dreams, until she heard about the other allegations, would cause me to question her reliability. In answer to this question, Ms Crown says BF had a "genuine reaction of relief" to the allegations, which allowed her to believe what she had previously been denying. She submitted that I would find BF always had these memories of the accused in a form but made specific allegations only after she made a complaint. 2. She submitted that I would find there was a level of self-denial and self-loathing in BF's evidence which would explain the dream or flashback like nature of her memories. She also pointed to BF's fear of damaging her relationship with the accused's family in support of this submission about self-denial. 3. She says the evidence that BF wanted her mother to promise not to tell anyone else suggested BF did not want to "jump on the bandwagon" and immediately report the accused to police. She submitted BF's evidence was not exaggerated. She pointed me to BF's evidence in relation to the pool incident involving MC and submitted there was no evidence of contamination between MC and BF's evidence. 4. Regarding Count 29, she pointed me to BF's evidence that she slept in the accused and KG's bed, and that this evidence was corroborated by the accused and KG. She pointed me to the conflict between the accused and KG's evidence, where the accused says he was sleeping with his back to BF and BF's position never changed, and KG says she awoke to BF sleeping on her legs, and submitted I would accept BF's evidence which is not inconsistent with KG's. 5. Regarding Count 37 and its alternative 38, she submitted that I would consider BF's emotions when recalling the incident in my assessment of the veracity of her evidence. 6. In respect of Count 36, Ms Crown invited me to reject the accused's evidence of his explanation for being naked in the garage, as she submitted it did not accord with BF or MC's evidence. She however pointed me to KG's evidence that she could not recall ever seeing the accused in the loungeroom, was not the female voice that BF heard whispering, and had never seen the accused leave their bedroom naked while kids were staying in the house. Tendency - TB and FH 1. Ms Crown submitted that I would take into account the aspects of TB and FH's evidence as tendency. 2. She submitted I would accept TB's evidence of the accused in a towel, "helicoptering" his penis in front of her, and I would accept this was similar to MC and BF's evidence that the accused was walking between the bedroom and bathroom in a towel. 3. Regarding Count 42 (Snapchat video to MC) she acknowledged memes, which were alleged to have been sent to others by the accused, were different than videos of the accused himself. She later went on to argue that the Crown position was that there was no significant difference between sending a picture of someone else's penis to a girl under the age of 14 or your own, that they were both child abuse material for the purposes of s 97A and for the purposes of tendency. 4. She submitted that I would accept TB received a Snapchat video from the accused depicting his towel, genital area and bum, accept this qualifies as tendency which supports MC's contention that she received a similar video from the accused. Questions arose about TB's evidence. Ms Crown submitted it was not necessary for me to accept TB's evidence to be satisfied the acts alleged in Count 42 took place - only that it would assist. 5. She pointed me to FH's evidence of receiving a dark photo with a penis from the accused on snapchat when she was in year 8 or 9, which she says is of the same character as the offending in Count 42 and demonstrates the accused had a tendency to have a sexual interest in girls of this age and to send them sexual material. Collusion between KG and the accused 1. She submitted that I would find KG and the accused discussed the details of the allegations and she was in receipt of a lengthy brief detailing AR's allegations. She pointed to evidence that KG has spoken to the accused, possibly about the allegations while he has been in custody. Crown submits the accused's evidence is unreliable. 1. Ms Crown pointed me to several instances where she says the accused's evidence differs from the other evidence and present issues as to his credit. These differences are; 1. between the accused and KG's evidence regarding the presence of AR and BF in their bed. 2. Between the accused's evidence and the evidence of LP, her mother, AR and AR's mother of when LP started to stay over. 1. The Crown submits that I would find the accused's evidence that LP first slept over immediately after her father died around New Year's 2010 implausible, as this sleepover after her father's passing could have only occurred if there was some closeness between the families beforehand, and this was apparent from the totality of the evidence and LP and her mother's evidence. 1. Between the accused's account and AR's father's account of how the falling out with AR's family came about and who instigated it. 2. Between the accused's various accounts about AM leaving kids asleep in her room and coming to his bed. 3. Between the accused and KG and MC's mother's evidence about whether MC continued to come over after certain events. 1. In particular she pointed me to MC's evidence that she stopped going to the accused's house of her own volition, and she was unaware of the issues between the adults. 1. Between the accused and KG's evidence about when they separated, and when he moved out of the house he shared with KG. 1. The Crown submitted in regard to this that even if the accused was residing outside, he still had an opportunity to commit the later offences as on his own evidence during the secret separation he was inside the house before the children woke up and when they were asleep to maintain the pretence of his relationship with KG. 1. Between his evidence that he never placed a child between his legs whilst watching the computer and the video which became Exhibit 32 depicting BF sitting between his legs in front of the computer, which he later acknowledged he had seen. 1. She submitted that this in particular was so significant that it alone would cause me to reject all his evidence of denials. 1. She also pointed me to what she submitted are significant aspects of the accused's evidence which were supportive of various complainant's accounts, which were; 1. his evidence that he "possibly" had stood in the doorway and masturbated while filming himself and this possibly happened when girls were staying over, 2. his evidence that he might have had the bathroom door ajar while he showered at night and that he regularly showered in the morning, which she submitted was supportive of AR's evidence. 3. his evidence that he had made sexual content in the bathroom. 1. She submitted I would not accept the evidence of the accused sending sexual images to MC, FH and TB by mistake as it was not a reasonable to have this mistake occur repeatedly towards girls in this age bracket. 2. She submitted that I would find his evidence regarding the Snapchat exchange with AR in 2021 was not believable, that he was clearly attempting to bribe AR into silence and that he made admissions of some kind of wrongdoing towards her. She pointed out the accused bears no onus in relation to anything, but the Court did not hear anything from the person, Grub, who he says sent the message to AR to the effect of "I used to love you. That's why I had to remove myself from you, hence, our eventual split." Submissions on behalf of the accused 1. Ms Cusack appeared on behalf of the accused. Defence submissions - AR 1. In respect of AR, she pointed me to what she submits is a discrepancy between AR's evidence that BF and LP were there during the relevant period and her evidence that she could not remember them there when anything happened. She submitted AR's evidence of when LP stopped going does not accord with the evidence of the accused, KG, or BF's mother KF/KS. 2. Regarding Count 1, she submitted there was no evidence of an indecent assault on AR and so I would only entertain the alternative Count 2, alleging an act of indecency with AR. She also submitted AR's evidence regarding these counts was generalised and did not amount to a particular allegation. 3. Regarding Count 3, she pointed me to the evidence where AR could not remember the events and particularly the cross-examination where AR said that she was not going to remember every fine detail. Ms Cusack submitted this was not just a fine detail but one of the key allegations in the indictment and the only one of its kind in relation to this complainant. 4. Regarding the context evidence to the acts alleged to have occurred on the Queensland trip, she pointed me to what she submitted were contradictions between AR's evidence and that of her mother, father, KG and the accused about where her family stayed on the Queensland holiday. She pointed out a further contradiction between her mother's evidence that the accommodation they shared with the accused's family on this trip was open plan, and AR's evidence that she was in one of 2 bedrooms, and this was where an incident took place. 5. Regarding the complaint evidence concerning AR, Ms Cusack pointed me to the evidence of AR's mother and father that AR was too upset to say anything the night they found out, and it was AR's sister who told them that AR had been sexually abused by the accused. 6. She submitted the evidence that AR told her sister that the accused had inserted a vibrator into her vagina at night differed from AR's evidence in court about the nature and circumstances of the allegation. She submitted AR's evidence of the circumstances of the vibrator incident was a highly unlikely event to have occurred in light of the evidence that it was an open plan unit and that AM, KG and BF would have been in the room as well. 7. She submitted her sister's response to AR's allegations, the message "how intense," was strange. She submitted the complaint witnesses in respect of AR; her sister and mother, WR, could not recall much of the complaint. 8. In relation to the counts that occurred in the cabins (7 and 8), she pointed out AR's evidence that she stayed in another cabin with other children including AM contradicted the evidence of every other witness that AM was not allowed to stay over anywhere other than her own home because of her condition, and in any event, the acts alleged could not have taken place in a cabin full of other people. She also said that there was no mention of a penis in AR's evidence and the suggestion of a penis being involved was led by the Crown. She submitted there were several points were AR's evidence about this incident and where it took place changed, and I would find it was not consistent or reliable. 9. In relation to the spa incident (Counts 9 and 10), Ms Cusack submitted that AR's evidence that the incident occurred while she, AM and the accused were in the Spa differed from SJ and SRM's evidence that the people on this holiday would go to the pool or spa area as a group. She submitted I would find it was unusual for the accused to go to the spa with only his daughter and AR and that I would also find AR's evidence was lacking in respect of this count. 10. She acknowledged the accused's evidence that the spa was not working differed from other witnesses. She submitted this did not necessarily suggest he was lying, only that his recollection may be wrong, or he was confused with another holiday destination. 11. She submitted I would infer AR had some contact with LP between the time she first disclosed to her sister and parents and when she made her statement to police, which was a year. She pointed me to differences between earlier evidence that AR and LP had not stayed at the accused's house together, to later evidence that their timelines overlapped, which she submitted suggests a keenness on the part of LP and her mother to place AR at the scene when LP was there. She pointed out this contradicted the evidence of AR's mother WR, who recalled BF and AR staying together at the accused's house, and not LP. 12. She acknowledged I would have difficulties finding the accused's account of the Snapchat messages with AR plausible but submitted that I would consider that the messages did not flow continuously, and the break in time between them. She submitted that the offer of money in the Snapchat messages could have related to anything, and only created suspicion that the accused had done something towards AR. She submitted that I could not rely on this as proof of the allegations against AR. Defence submissions – LP 1. She submitted that LP's certainty when giving evidence should give me cause to scrutinise it with some care. She submitted that LP could not possibly remember such detail as a 6 or 7 year old child. 2. She submitted LP's evidence was repetitive which suggested it was generalised view of what happened to her. 3. She pointed to the discrepancy of LP's evidence that the first incident when she was staying over occurred before Christmas 2008 after she had seen the accused watching a football match and that there was a bar outside, and what was evident from Exhibit 11, that the bar was not built until after 19 December 2009. She submitted I would not accept LP's evidence that she remembered the events occurred before Christmas 2008 because they spent Christmas that year with the accused's family, because in Ms Cusack's submission, it was unusual to spend Christmas with non-relatives and LP's mother did not recall spending this Christmas with the accused's family. She submitted LP did not start sleeping over and visiting until much later on. 4. She submitted that I would not accept LP's evidence that she was at the accused's house for a sleepover before AM's birthday in 2009, as AM already had a big birthday at Movie World that year, their house was still damaged from the floods at that point. 5. She submitted LP's evidence about being forced to eat crab by the accused during this stay was nonsensical and not supported by her mother's evidence. 6. Ms Cusack pointed me to several instances where she says LP's mother was attempting to 'elevate' her daughter's allegations. 7. In relation to Count 28 which is alleged to have occurred during this stay, she submitted I would not accept her account about going to KG when the accused was out of sight (in the ensuite) and telling her she felt sick, as no other witness other than TB accepted there was an ensuite in the accused's house. 8. She submitted it was not coincidental that photos of AR were included in the folder of pictures titled 'the accused's name' belonging to LP's mother, and I would infer from this AR and LP knew about each other's complaint. She submitted I would consider that LP's mother's actions in relation to the folder affect her credibility as a witness in these proceedings, and that she lied to this Court. She also submitted I would find LP was lying when she said there has been no collaboration with her mother, and her credibility was also affected by her refusal to concede she had any contact with AR until as recent as after AR's statement in 2020. 9. She submitted that I would find that LP's mother knew about AR's allegations as this is why, Ms Cusack says, she appeared to be concerned to place AR and her daughter at the accused's house in the morning, contrary to her daughter's evidence that she never recalled being dropped off to the accused's house in the morning. 10. She pointed me to LP's evidence where she could not initially recall anything happening before the floods when her, AM and BF were asleep in AM's room. Ms Cusack says she only recalled the incident (subject of Counts 19 and 20) after extensive leading from the Crown. She submits this smacks of invention, not recollection. 11. She submitted I would not accept LP's evidence about BF and her mother staying over during the week, while she stayed over only on weekends, (hence her evidence that BF was only present during one of the allegations) as it contradicted the evidence of BF and her mother. 12. She submitted I would not accept LP's evidence about the single or trundle bed underneath AM's bed as this was not supported by any other witness. 13. She submitted there was no independent evidence of LP being with the accused's family in 2008, but there were several pictures depicting LP with the accused's family in 2009 and 2010 which accords with the accused and KG's evidence of the timeline of the relationship. Defence submissions – MC 1. Ms Cusack pointed me to the evidence of CW, MC's friend, that all she had been told in terms of complaint was expressed in the Snapchat message to SB, MC's mother, which was that MC woke up and the accused was wanking next to her. He would play with her in a sexual way and pretend he was playing in the pool. He would leave the door open as he would shower so she would see. 2. MC's mother confirmed when she confronted her daughter about what CW had told her, that MC only said something vague about what happened. She conceded this disclosure occurred before police became involved, and submitted it occurred in circumstances where MC was upset about something else at the time. 3. She submitted I would be sceptical about MC's allegation about what occurred in the pool (Count 43 and 44), and pointed me to MC's evidence where she describes the game that would be played with the accused in the pool, where he would launch her into the air with his hands underneath her arms, and from there, MC says, his hands would slip down to her hips and underneath her swimming costume, submitting this was implausible or impossible from a mechanical point of view. She also submitted BF's evidence of what she saw occur between MC and the accused was too vague. 4. She submitted the accused did not try to minimise MC's presence at his home. 5. She submitted there was a connection between MC and BF at the point of BF reporting to police, as she had given them MC's mobile number. 6. She submitted I would not accept that the accused sent a video of himself masturbating to MC while aware that her social media was monitored by her mother. She pointed out that MC's mother did not give evidence about how she monitored the social media. She pointed out that MC made the allegation of the Snapchat video three months after her initial statement to police. 7. She submitted I would not accept TB's evidence at all, and that the agreed facts mention only that things were said about the accused, and it was not agreed that he sent anything to TB. She submitted TB did not mention anything in her evidence about what occurred near the doorway about helicoptering, and TB was suggesting that the accused being in his towel after coming out of the shower was offensive. She pointed to several inconsistencies in TB's evidence and that she did not complain about the accused until the end of year 7, in circumstances where she was in the principal's office for unrelated pictures found on her device. She acknowledged it was quite possible the accused sent something to TB that was inappropriate, but this was because of his level of maturity and habit of sending memes he thinks are funny, and not because of his sexual interest in young girls and tendency to act on it. 8. She submitted I would find the accused was a party animal with a party house where a lot of people were coming and going, particularly on the weekend, and this would explain his difficulty pinpointing times and relying on denials in his evidence. Defence submissions – BF 1. Ms Cusack submitted BF and the accused were very close, and he was like a father to her. She pointed me to the evidence that BF only disclosed the accused had done something to her after her mother told her about the allegations involving LP and the accused. She pointed me to Exhibit K, BF's statement on 17 December where she said, "nothing stands out", and then her later statement on 3 January, where the allegations are actually detailed. 2. She submitted I would view BF's evidence about the dreams she had that became clearer when she was told about the allegations concerning LP with scepticism, given her long relationship with the accused. She submitted I would view this evidence in light of the certainty required by the standard of proof in criminal trials that something in fact occurred and was not a dream. She pointed me to her mother, KS/KF's evidence that she saw nothing untoward happen between the accused and her daughter, and her shock and disbelief at hearing of the allegations involving LP. Ms Cusack accepted these kinds of offences occur behind closed doors but submitted KS/KF's evidence is significant in light of position as someone who spent a lot of time with the accused, drinking and staying up late. 3. She submitted the accused agreed he was naked in the garage on one occasion, and this may have been misconstrued by BF as him placing her penis in his face. She pointed to the fact that BF did not give evidence of the French kiss with MC that she was supposed to have been involved in. Generally 1. Ms Cusack submitted I would look to the accused's sister's evidence, SJ, who has been a foster carer for 30 or 40 years, is a mandatory reporter, has done courses about the signs of child sexual assault and has had hundreds of children in her care. She said she has never had any concerns about the accused's interactions with any of the kids in her care over the years, that she has asked her foster children if the accused had done anything to them, and that they said no. She submitted I would accept SJ was a credible witness and a protective mother and would not make up stories to protect the accused. 2. There was no crime in KG assisting the accused with his defence given he is in custody without access to resources. 3. She submitted that I would view the messages between KG and MC's mother, SB, in light of the falling out between SB's husband and KF/KS's sister. 4. The accused has often given evidence against his interest. She submitted despite what the accused said about being in a fatherly position of authority in respect of LP, it was actually KG that was in charge. 5. I would not accept the tendency evidence beyond reasonable doubt or use it in support of the case against the accused. DETERMINATION Directed verdict 1. Before commencing her address on Thursday, 11 April 2024, the Crown Prosecutor advised the court that after considering the evidence, the Crown had not reached a prima facie case in relation to Counts 26 and 27 (LP) and invited the court to direct a verdict of not guilty. Accordingly, I directed a verdict of not guilty in relation to Count 26 and the alternative Count 27. 2. The counts alleged sexual intercourse in circumstances of aggravation (under authority) contrary to s 66A(2), and the alternate of sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A(1). The Crown had anticipated in her opening address that LP would give evidence that she woke up to the accused's fingers in her vagina. LP gave evidence that she woke up to the accused undressing before moving her legs apart and placing his penis on her vagina in an attempt to have sexual intercourse. 3. I must consider whether this failure to come up to proof affects my determination as to her reliability in relation to other counts. Tendency 1. The prosecution, by notice, asks that evidence given by the respective complainants be admissible in the trial relating to the others. Ordinarily, where counts relating to multiple complainants are heard together the evidence in relation to one is not able to be used and is inadmissible in the case of the other. And, I would have to take great care not to allow a finding in relation to one complainant to influence my determination in relation to the other by a process of false reasoning that, because a defendant did something to one complainant, he must have done something to another. 2. There are exceptions to the general rule. One exception is that after proper notice is given the prosecution allege a tendency in the accused to act in a particular way or have a particular state of mind. And that tendency and state of mind was manifest when a count or related context evidence occurred. 3. The prosecution ask that any tendency revealed by the evidence of a complainant be admissible intra-complainant so far as the counts relating to them alone are concerned. This is technically possible: The Queen v Bauer [2018] HCA 40. 4. Ms Cusack asks that before I apply tendency reasoning intra-complainant, I first satisfy myself that the evidence relied on be established beyond reasonable doubt: s 161A(2) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). I accept that submission. 5. The alleged tendency is a tendency of the accused to have a particular state of mind, namely a sexual interest in female children aged between 6 and 14 years and act upon that interest. 6. The defence accepted that at law, such evidence is cross admissible between complainants. Their response however is that it would not assist in my determination of the issues. 7. Where there is no direct evidence about either the alleged tendency or state of mind on a specific occasion, I can have regard to all the other evidence in the trial to reason by way of inference or deduction. If the tendency is proved, it may assist in resolving doubts in relation to an offence. 8. If there are other reasonable explanations available these must be considered. Further, even if I accept one or more allegations it would be wrong to reason that just because the accused had done some things that he is therefore generally a person of bad character and thus more likely to have committed the offences charged. 9. The prosecution say that I will be satisfied the accused had this sexual interest and acted on it as alleged, making it more likely that he committed each of the offences charged in the indictment. 10. Before I can use the evidence of other proved counts in the way the prosecution asks, I must make two findings: 11. That one or more of those acts actually occurred. In making that finding, I do not consider each act in isolation but consider all the evidence and asked whether I find a particular act relied upon actually took place. 12. If I do find one or more of those acts alleged as a count occurred, then I must go on to consider whether, from the act or acts I have found occurred, I can then infer the accused had the tendency and state of mind alleged. If I cannot draw that inference, then I must put aside any suggestion that the accused had a sexual interest in any or all of the complainant's or a tendency to act on that interest. 13. That an inference could be drawn is not the test. If there are other alternatives or inferences reasonably available, inferences that are consistent with the accused being innocent, then the prosecution has not proved its point. The evidence must not be used in any other way. 14. Evidence of each complainant's allegations were admitted as tendency evidence in proof of the other complainant's counts: The Queen v Bauer. However, while admissible I still must consider what weight I give the evidence. 15. I apply s 161A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. On my analysis of the respective complainant's evidence which follows, I am not persuaded that the accused had the relevant state of mind alleged in the tendency notice or a tendency to act on it. TB 1. I had ruled that TB's evidence was capable of proof of a tendency on the part of the accused. I was required to take her evidence at its highest at the time of my ruling. 2. In evidence in chief, TB said: "he walked into the bedroom with his towel wrapped around him after he got out of the shower. He told [AM] to go in for a shower, and he came out and took his towel off and started, like, helicoptering, like, his private part. Then another time he was standing so [AM's] room was opposite his, and he had the bathroom door open, and [AM's] door was obviously open, and he did it. Like, took a white towel off and started doing it and, like, pulled it in front of me." (Transcript 20 March 2024, p.555(35-40)) 1. In cross-examination she was taken to paragraphs 8 and 9 of her statement. She agreed that those paragraphs dealt with staying after school at AM's home when the accused had done something either with his towel on or with his towel off. After having read those paragraphs, she agreed that there was no mention of helicoptering of his private part or masturbation. 2. She alleged that the second episode occurred when the accused was in his bedroom which was directly opposite AM's room. The evidence of other witnesses contradicts TB. The accused's bedroom was not opposite AM's bedroom, the bathroom was. This calls into doubt the reliability of her evidence. 3. In her police statement (Transcript 20 March 2024, p 561 (30)) she asserted that the accused had an ensuite in his bedroom. This assertion is contrary to the evidence of other witnesses in the trial and calls into doubt her reliability. 4. The evidence speaks of recent invention and the layout of the rooms does not accord with the evidence in the trial. I reject the evidence. She is an unreliable witness. 5. The second aspect of her evidence was that she alleged the accused sent her an image of is bottom via Snapchat. She saw his head and it came from his Snapchat account. 6. She said she opened the image and then went to her parents' bedroom and showed her father. On Snapchat, once videos are opened, they disappear. She told police that she told her mum about receiving the video that night and a few days later her dad picked her up form school and she told him in the car (Transcript 20 March 2024, p 565-567). She went on to say in evidence "I ran up there (parent's bedroom) to tell my dad. My dad was asleep, and I tried to wake my dad up, and my mum looked at me, because she's seen it and she shook her head at me". 7. There is a conflict of her evidence in the different accounts she has given to the prosecutor, the cross-examiner and the police. At one stage she used the expression "I think my dad seen them on my iPod when I got them sent to me" (Transcript 20 March 2024, p 560(6)). The expression "I think" speaks of uncertainty on the part of the witness. 8. The evidence of TB must be looked at in the context as to how the allegation came about. It is said the message was sent sometime in 2016. TB and her father met with the school principal and a police officer on 19 June 2017. It was suggested to TB in cross-examination that she was in trouble for images found on her iPod (not of the accused) and that is why she mentioned the accused. The following question was asked, "Q. It's only because you were in trouble, I suggest, that you raise this issue of [the accused] because he was no longer on your phone, according to you, or your iPod was he? A. I actually don't know how he got brought up in the office. I don't remember. And I'm not going to say, like, you know, something happened when I don't remember." (Transcript 20 March 2024, p 567(32-37)) 1. It was a curious response to say the least. 2. The Crown submits that the agreed facts (Exhibit 24) make it clear that TB's father saw the image. I disagree. The agreed facts make it clear that he became aware of an image, but it is unclear how he became aware of the image. Was he told by his wife, his daughter or someone else? There is nothing in the agreed facts demonstrating that he saw an image. By the very nature of the application of Snapchat and on the evidence (contradictory) given by TB he, (the father) could not have seen the image. 3. Without even considering the accused's response to the allegation I reject the evidence of TB. I am not satisfied that the accused sent an image to her. She is an unreliable witness. FH 1. FH was friends with the accused's daughter, AM. She had the accused on her Snapchat and Facebook message accounts. After refreshing her memory from her statement, she told the court she received a dark photo with a penis which was a meme. She recalled a second occasion where she received an inappropriate meme on social media. Both were sent by the accused. She was not traumatised by either image and blocked him temporarily. The accused said the first image was meant for someone else inferring that it was accidentally sent to FH. I previously ruled that the evidence was capable of proof of a tendency on the part of the accused in relation to Count 42 where MC is the complainant. 2. There is a distinction between the allegation made by MC (an image of the accused) and what was sent to FH which were memes as opposed to actual images. Count 42 requires intent on the part of the accused. The accused asserts that he accidentally sent the memes to FH. Accident is contrary to intent. Although the evidence of FH is admissible the question arises as to what weight I should give the evidence. AR Complaint evidence 1. The first-person the complainant AR told was her boyfriend, TC. She was 16 (2018). What she told him was very brief. She said, "things happened when I was little with my next-door neighbour". She told her sister when she was 17. Her sister told her parents in their lounge room. She made a statement to the police on 27 July 2020. 2. Her sister gave evidence that the complainant told her "she would wake up to it, she would have a sex toy inside her, he would be touching her, have his head between her legs." 3. The complainant's father, MR, gave evidence that he had a conversation with her in her bedroom. She said she had been sexually abused by the accused and she was in bed one night and woke up with him between her legs, trying to insert things into her body. There was another instance where he had his head between her legs. She said something about the Gold Coast trip and that something had happened there. She mentioned the golf club cabins as well. 4. The evidence of MR is contrary to the evidence of the complainant who said that she did not discuss details of the incident with her parents in her bedroom. It is also contrary to the evidence of the complainant's sister who said that no details were discussed in the bedroom. 5. The complaint was delayed. I direct myself in accordance with s 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1983 (NSW) that the delay in complaining does not necessarily indicate that the allegations are false. I consider that there may be good reasons why a victim of a sexual assault may hesitate in making a complaint. The good reasons in this case are her age at the time of offending and the relationship she had with the accused's daughter. She said it was hard to tell her parents, "because it's embarrassing, and I don't want to hurt their feelings" (Transcript 7 March 2024, p 109 (44)). 6. I consider complaint evidence in two ways. Firstly, it strengthens the credibility of the complainant and secondly it may be used in proof of an offence. Count 3: sexual intercourse child under 10 contrary to s 66A (T 60. 39- 61. 49) 1. The complainant was unable to give evidence of this allegation. Leave was granted for her to refresh her memory from paragraph 8 of her statement. She then gave evidence that she went into the accused's bedroom. He was touching her on her vagina on the bed. She did not recall what she was wearing. He removed her clothing. He was trying to put his fingers in her vagina. She felt pain. His fingers were inside her vagina. She said stop. He stopped. She felt sore. That was the only time it occurred. 2. She was unable to give evidence of Count 3 without refreshing her memory. This is the first and only occasion it is alleged that the accused put his fingers inside her vagina causing her soreness. It would have been a significant event in a young child's memory. 3. In cross-examination she was asked why she forgot about it when giving evidence. She said, "Well, when you're sitting in this room, talking about something that's very emotional, it's hard to remember everything" (Transcript 7 March 2024, p 97 (37,38)). 4. The Crown submitted that allowances should be made for her age at the time of the alleged offence and the stress of giving evidence. I direct myself in accordance with s 293A of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is up to me to decide whether or not any differences in the complainant's account are important in assessing the complainants' truthfulness and reliability. 5. I am required to apply my common sense. She described the event as traumatic and hurting (Transcript 7 March 2024, p 97 (33)). It was the only occasion it occurred. If it had happened, it would have been a significant event in a child's life. The failure to recount the evidence of this episode without reference to her statement calls into question her accuracy and reliability. Without even considering the accused's evidence I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this incident occurred. 6. The accused is found not guilty of Count 3. Counts 1 and 2: assault with act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2) alternatively, act of indecency contrary to s 61O(2) (T 38. 6 to 39. 3) 1. She would stay at the accused house before and after school. The accused would drive her and his daughter to and from school. One day while at the accused's house he put on the TV. He then took her into his room. He began to touch her, and he got her to touch him on his penis. He got her hand and placed it on his penis. The accused's daughter was watching TV. After refreshing her memory from paragraph 7 of her statement she said that his penis was erect. 2. On the balance of probabilities, I accept her evidence. Count 4: sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A (T 39. 5-39. 44) 1. On another occasion the complainant was sleeping over. She was asleep with AM in her bed. She woke up and the accused was between her legs. His head was in her genitals. He had his mouth on her vagina. He was using his tongue, and she said it was moving around in her vagina. She rolled over. AM remained asleep. 2. On the balance of probabilities, I accept her evidence. Counts 5 and 6: assault with act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2) alternatively act of indecency contrary to s 61O(2) (T 40. 20- 42. 42) 1. There was a flood on 31 March 2009. The accused and his family had to move out of their house because of the floods and go to alternative accommodation. When the accused was staying at the other accommodation, he asked her to go into the shower. He was outside the bathroom when he said that. It was a weekday. She had been playing in the living room with AM. She went to the bathroom, and he asked her "to wash him". She washed his penis using her hand. His penis was erect. 2. On the balance of probabilities, I accept her evidence. Context evidence (T 42. 44- 45. 35, 44. 46- 45. 35) 1. The complainant and accused's family went on holiday to the Gold Coast. Her family were staying in a different hotel to the accused. She stayed with the accused, his partner and AM at their accommodation for the first night. She was sleeping in a single bed. AM was in a single bed. She woke up to a vibrating sensation on her vagina. She saw the accused. He was kneeling next to her bed. It was a vibrator. It was small, the size of a lip balm. She was wearing pyjamas and undies. The vibrator was inside her underpants. She took it out of her undies. The accused took it off her and left the room. She stayed the next night with her parents at their accommodation. 2. Mr Cusack submits that the evidence discloses that the accommodation was open plan. There were no separate bedrooms. AR said there were bedrooms. Ms Cusack submitted that it was unlikely that the event occurred in open plan accommodation with AM, KG and BF in the same room. 3. I have taken those matters into account in assessing AR's evidence. On the balance of probabilities, I accept her evidence. Counts 7 and 8: act of indecency contrary to s61O(2), assault commit act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2) (T 46. 17, 47. 3- 47. 3 2, 6 2. 2 8- 6 2. 4 9) 1. There was a second trip to the south of [redacted]. The accused, his partner, AM and his brother were there. Members of the accused's family including adults and children were also there. They were staying in cabins. There were bunk beds. The accused woke her up and took her out of the cabin. She was not sure what happened. She had her memory refreshed from her statement and said that the accused was touching her vagina below her clothing and getting her to touch him on the outside of his clothing. She could feel his penis. 2. Her evidence on 6 March 2024, p 47 (3-32) is as follows. "Q. On that trip do you remember anything happening with [the accused]? A. I remember one night being taken out of the cabin. Q. By whom? A. [the accused]. Q. When you say you took you outside the cabin? A. Woke me up and let me out of the cabin. Q. When you say he led you out, was he— A. Like, walk me out. Q. Once you outside the cabin what can remember happening? A. I'm not completely sure. I just remember being woken up and taken out. Q. Do you remember how long your outside? A. No. Q. Do you remember if anyone else was with you while your outside? A. No one. Q. Do you remember if he said anything to you? A. I can't remember, no." 1. Ms Cusack makes several criticisms of the complainant's evidence. The complainant on 6 March 2024, p 46(39) said she was staying in a cabin with other kids including AM. The overwhelming evidence is that due to AM's diabetes she would not stay away from her parents. 2. The evidence of the complainant is inconsistent with the evidence of SJ, the accused's sister. Her evidence was: "Q. Were there any occasions when the parents responsible for the kids would let them sleep all together in one unit and the parents would sleep in— A. No. No, there wasn't the room." (Transcript 9 April 2024, p.949(35)) 1. Ms Cusack says that the complainant could not remember anything happening. It was necessary for the Crown to refresh her memory. After having her memory refreshed "she was pretty vague about what she remembered happening even after looking at the statement… All she said was that he touched her and that she touched him". There was no mention of the penis. 2. Ms Cusack makes complaint of the Crown leading evidence from the complainant that she touched the accused's penis. The following questions were asked by the Crown prosecutor after she had the complainant refresh her memory from paragraph 18 of her statement. "Q. I'm going to ask you to read paragraph 18 to yourself. A. Yes. Yeah. Q. Now that you've read that paragraph, I'll just get you to put that piece of paper to one side. Can you now remember what it was that happened when your outside of the cabin with [the accused]? A. Yeah. I just remember brief touching. I don't remember anything. Q. When you say brief touching, where was that brief touching and by whom? A. [the accused] touching me on my vagina and [the accused] making me touch him, but I can't remember anything after that. Q. And remember if that touching happened with clothes on your body or close off your body? A. On my body. Q. was the touching above or below your clothing, the fabric of your clothing? A. Below. Q. You said that you were made to touch his penis. Was that above or below his clothing? A. Above." 1. The witness said that the accused was making her touch him, but she had not said that he was making her touch his penis. I accept Ms Cusack's submission that the Crown led the witness to give evidence that she was made to touch his penis. That was not her evidence before the leading occurred. 2. A further version given by the complainant was that she was taken outside of the cabin and into another room. She described the same incident having happened in the room as opposed to outside the cabin. This is inconsistent with the first version given by her in her evidence. 3. The complainant was unable to give evidence of this episode without her memory being refreshed from her statement. It calls into question her accuracy and reliability. She has given different versions as to what occurred. Her evidence of staying in a cabin with other kids is not supported by any evidence. 4. In assessing her accuracy and reliability, I may look at the variations in the accounts she has given. I direct myself in accordance with s 293A of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is for me to assess the differences in the complainant's accounts and whether they are important in assessing her truthfulness and reliability. 5. For Count 3, I find a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant. I must consider how that conclusion affects my consideration in relation to other counts under consideration. The failure to recount the evidence of this episode without reference to her statement calls into question her accuracy and reliability, as do the matters I have discussed relevant to this count. Without even considering the accused's evidence, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the incident occurred. 6. I find the accused not guilty of Count 7 and Count 8. Counts 9 and 10: assault with act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2) in the alternative, commit act of indecency contrary to s 61O(2) (T 4 7. 3 7- 4 8. 1 7) 1. The complainant's evidence was that there was an outdoor spa. She was in the spa with the accused and AM. It was daytime. The accused put her hand on his board shorts. She could feel his erect penis. She was trying to act normal because AM was in the spa. She did not want anyone to know she was embarrassed. Later, he told her, "Not to tell anyone and that I would hate him when I am older." 2. The accused gave evidence that there was a spa at Manning Point, but it was out of service because some army guys who were staying made a mess in the spa. He denied getting into a spa at any time with AR. His brother SRM gave evidence that they stayed at Tiona where there was a pool and spa which they used. 3. The accused's partner KG gave evidence that they took AR on holidays to Tiona. She said the pool was operational for most of the time. The spa wasn't operational for the entire trip as some army people that were staying there went to the toilet in the spa and it had to be drained. 4. The accused's sister, SJ, gave evidence of going on holiday to Tiona with the accused's family and that AR was there. She agreed that the spa was operational the first day and night that they were there. It was her evidence that they would not go off in small groups to the spa or the pool but rather they were all together because that was the purpose of the weekend. 5. SRM's evidence conflicts with the accused's evidence. The accused may have mistakenly referred to Manning Point as opposed to Tiona. The evidence of the accused's sister that the spa was operational the first day and night speaks of opportunity for the accused to do what was alleged against him. 6. On the balance of probabilities, I accept the complainant's evidence. LP 1. The first-person LP told was her mother, TP, in October 2021. She was at work and her mother rang her while she was on a break. She asked what day she had off next because two detectives needed to talk to her in relation to the accused. She asked, "in relation to what about [the accused]?" And her mum could not say. She started to cry. She told her mum she would be "really disappointed" in her and that the accused used to sexually assault her. She said her mum was quiet and said, "oh [LP]" and asked if he ever did anything with his penis. She said no. She said her mum told her to go back to work and be strong. She then went back to work. She went home after her work. She lived with her mum, dad and brother at the time. She did not speak to anyone else about the allegations until she went to the police station with a support person to give a statement. 2. The accused said to her, "don't tell anyone about this", or "you can't tell anyone about this, because you won't have a mum and dad". She did not tell her parents what happened, "because of what [the accused] said to me. I was afraid of losing my mum and dad" (Transcript 7 March 2024, p121-122). 3. In January 2010, LP's biological father passed away. He was a police officer. She went to the accused's house that day with her brother. She was in AM's bedroom alone with the accused when he said to her, "you no longer have a dad to protect you anymore" (Transcript 7 March 2024, p143-144). 4. The complaint was delayed. I direct myself in accordance with s 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act that the delay in complaining does not necessarily indicate that the allegations are false. I consider that there may be good reason why a victim of a sexual assault may hesitate in making a complaint. The good reasons in this case are her age at the time of offending, the relationship she had with the accused's daughter and what was allegedly said by the accused to her. 5. I consider the evidence of complaint in two ways. Firstly, it strengthens the credibility of the complainant and secondly it may be used in proof of an offence. Criticism of LP's evidence 1. LP was a child when the events took place. She was certain Christmas fell mid-week. Ms Cusack says children of that age when on holidays have no idea what day of the week it is. There is some merit in that submission. She makes further criticism of LP's evidence. LP gave evidence of the contents of a lunch box packed by the accused's wife, which consisted of a packet of chips, muesli bar, a sandwich and a pop-up. It was this lunch and the failure to eat all of it that resulted in the accused saying, "don't' be disrespectful" and Counts 24 and 25 occurring. Ms Cusack says a child years later would not be able to say precisely what was in her lunch box. This criticism fails to consider firstly, that this is the only time the accused's wife packed a lunch for her and secondly, the failure to finish the contents resulted in digital penetration which hurt her, causing pain. In applying my common-sense I do understand how such a traumatic moment would result in recollection of what was in the lunch box. 2. She further criticised the complainant's evidence as general and repetitive. Counts 11,12,13 and 14: assault with act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2), sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A (digital), sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A (cunnlingus), assault and commit an act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2). 1. LP gave evidence the first time anything occurred was before Christmas 2008. She was in bed with the accused's daughter AM. She went to bed with a nightie dress on and underwear. She woke up and the accused was lying on top of her. He started to pull down her underwear. She asked him not to and attempted to pull it back up. He said to her, "I don't get how you sleep with your underwear on it's unhealthy". He then inserted his fingers in and out of her vagina and was kissing her on the neck area, up around the chin and on the cheek. She felt discomfort. On this same occasion, the accused then pull down her underwear further down to her knees. He then used his tongue on her vagina, licking and stroking it. 2. The accused then stood up and undid his laces on his board shorts. He used his erect penis to rub on the outside of her vagina. She started to cry, and the accused got up and said, "please don't cry, this is normal for boys and girls." He then got up, put pants on, kissed her on the lips, kissed his daughter on the lips, then left the room and closed the door. 3. The date range on the indictment is between 1 December 2008 and 31 December 2008. Ms Cusack has not submitted that the alleged dates are an element of the offence. The date range is a form of particularisation of the offence. The witness recalled the accused being at a home-made bar prior to this incident. Exhibit 11 is a photograph of the bar being constructed, dated 19 December 2009. The complainant's evidence that the accused was at the bar prior to this incident happening is incorrect and calls into question her reliability. It was the evidence of the accused and KG, his former partner, that LP did not stay overnight until the end of 2009 and or the beginning of 2010. She had play dates before that time, but she did not sleep over until much later. 4. The complainant remembered this event happening before Christmas because she spent Christmas with the accused's household. Ms Cusack submitted that it is unusual to have Christmas at someone else's house if they are not a relative. The complainant said that her parents did not really celebrate Christmas, so AM asked her to come over and her family did. Ms Cusack said that would be something her mother might have remembered but TP did not. This calls into question the date range and reliability of the complainant. 5. There is evidence that AM had a class a birthday party in 2008 at her family's house. Because of the floods in March 2009, they were unable to have a birthday party for her that year at the house. The house was under renovation from the flood damage. They had AM's birthday that year at Movie World instead. I do not accept the complainant's evidence that there was a birthday party in 2009 at AM's home. 6. Several photographs were produced by LP and TP. It was the evidence of LP that her parents and AM's parents exchanged photographs and they would get them on Facebook. There is not one photo from 2008 other than the school photographs. There are no photographs of LP and AM doing activities together or being together. The photographs come from late 2009 and early 2010 which is consistent with the evidence of KG about their relationship with TP and her family. KG in cross-examination gave the following evidence; "Q. How long a period of time do you recall, in terms of weeks or months, it was that [LP] was staying the night at your place? A. [LP] came over for many play dates, but she didn't sleep over that many times. Q. Over what period of time did she sleep over? Can you remember? A. Towards the end of 2009. Q. I'm going to suggest to you that she started sleeping over before the Christmas of 2008. A. No, I don't recall that. Q. And at least one other time just before Christmas of 2008 and continued to do so through 2009. A. No, I don't recall that. Q. And, in fact, she stayed with you at one. For at least one night when you were staying away from your home because of the flood damage. A. No, I don't recall that. Q. Is it the case that you don't remember it, but it's possible? Or are you saying it didn't happen? A. I specifically remember another person staying with us after the floods, but I don't recall it being [LP]. Q. who was the other person that you recall? A. It was [AR]. " (Transcript 9 April 2024, p 934 (8-34)) 1. I accept the evidence of KG and reject the evidence of LP when she commenced to stay overnight at the house. The prosecution has specified certain time periods during which it is said that the events the subject of the counts under consideration occurred. Apart from the specific age limits, which are elements of a count, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt an allegation in a count occurred strictly on or within the time period set out in the indictment. However, the defence have used these dates to prepare for trial and to respond to the allegations. An allegation that a specific event, the subject of the count, occurred within those time periods is an important guide in assessing the evidence and in particular the accuracy and reliability of the complainant's account in relation to those counts. I am not satisfied that LP was an accurate and reliable witness in relation to Counts 11, 12, 13 and 14. 2. There are two other concerning aspects of the complainant's evidence. Firstly, she said that there were two bathrooms at the house. She said the accused had an ensuite. There was no ensuite in the house. I reject the evidence of TP that the bathroom had two doors one from the hallway and one from the bedroom. Her evidence has the flavour of acting as an advocate for her daughter. Such advocacy is a natural reaction to a feeling of letting her daughter down and allowing her to be placed in the position she was. Secondly, she said that when she stayed in AM's room, she slept on a single mattress that was pulled out from under the bed. No other complainants who stayed overnight with AM said that there was a single mattress in AM's room. KG said there was no such thing. 3. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Counts 11,12,13 and 14 occurred. The accused is found not guilty. Counts 15, 16, 17 and 18: sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A (digital), sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A (cunnilingus), assault with act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2) and act of indecency towards contrary to s 61O(2). 1. The date range for the offences are between 24 December 2008 and 6 January 2009. I accept the evidence of KG and reject the evidence of LP when she commenced to stay overnight at the house. The prosecution has specified certain time periods during which it is said that the events the subject of the counts under consideration occurred. Apart from the specific age limits, which are elements of a count, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt an allegation in a count occurred strictly on or within the time period set out in the indictment. However, the defence have used these dates to prepare for trial and to respond to the allegations. An allegation that a specific event, the subject of the count, occurred within those time periods is an important guide in assessing the evidence and in particular the accuracy and reliability of the complainant's account in relation to those counts. 2. LP says that on a weekend after Christmas 2008, she slept over at the accused's house. She slept on the wall side of AM's bed. She woke up and the accused was on top of her. He pulled her underwear down to her knees. He then put two or three fingers in and out of her vagina. On this same occasion he then used his tongue to lick her vagina for what felt like 3 to 5 minutes. He was wearing boxer style shorts which he pulled down to his knees. He took out his erect penis and rubbed it on the outside of her vagina. He then used his own hand to rub his penis back and forth. He knelt on the end of the bed as he did this. He then ejaculated into a towel that he brought into the room with him. This type of incident happened more than once. He would always use his fingers and then his tongue. He would sometimes use one finger and sometimes two or three. 3. I have previously stated that it is more likely than not that LP did not commence overnight stays until late 2009 at the earliest. I am not satisfied that LP was an accurate and reliable witness in relation to Counts 15, 16, 17 and 18. 4. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Counts 15, 16, 17 and 18 occurred. The accused is found not guilty. Counts 19,20,21,22 and 23: sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A(2)-under authority (digital), in the alternate sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A(1). Sexual intercourse under authority contrary to s 66A(2)(cunnilingus), in the alternate sexual intercourse contrary s 66A(1). Act of indecency towards contrary to s61O(2). 1. The Crown amended the dates of the indictment to read 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2009. 2. Before the floods and after Christmas, LP had a sleepover in AM's room. She slept on a single bed on the floor and BF slept in AM's bed with AM. She woke up to the accused on top of her. He kissed her neck and inserted his fingers in and out of her vagina. On the same occasion, he then used his tongue on her vagina. He got up and walked out of the room and left. She could not recall if he did anything before leaving the room. She refreshed her memory from paragraph 40 of her statement and said that he got up and rubbed his penis back and forth with his own hand. He then got a tissue from AM's bedside table and ejaculated into the tissue. 3. The incident may have happened in the date range alleged. However, the complainant asserts that she slept on a single bed on the floor and BF slept in AM's bed with AM. No witness including the other complainants support LP's evidence that there was a single pull-out bed in AM's room. This points to unreliability on the part of the complainant. She was unable to give evidence of Count 23 until her memory was refreshed from her statement. This also points to unreliability on her part. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken into account and directed myself in accordance with s 293A of the Criminal Procedure Act. 4. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Counts 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 have been made out. I find the accused not guilty. Counts 24 and Count 25: sexual intercourse under authority contrary to s 66A(2) (digital), in the alternate sexual intercourse contrary to s 66A(1). 1. The complainant says that she stayed 3 nights at the accused's house for AM's birthday in 2009 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night. I do not accept this evidence. AM's birthday party took place on the Gold Coast in 2009. KG gave evidence that LP did not stay over on a school night or for 2 nights in a row. I rejected the evidence of TP that there was a second birthday party that year. She says that the accused took her and AM out on the boat to check crab pots on Thursday. They all had crab for dinner. She could not eat it as she is allergic to shellfish. The accused became agitated and angry. The following Friday morning, KG packed lunch for her and AM. KG took them both to school. The accused later picked them up. She did not eat all her lunch. The accused found out and said to her something along the lines of, "I will deal with you later." 2. She woke up that Friday night to the accused crawling onto the bed. She slept on the right-hand side of the bed near the wall. He crawled on her side of the bed up to her waist area. He lifted her nightie dress up and then tried to pull her underwear down. She tried to put them back up. He then said angrily, "don't be so disrespectful". She felt scared. He inserted 3 or 4 fingers in and out of her vagina. She felt pain and discomfort. She said, "please stop" or "I don't like it". He did not respond. She then said, "it's hurting me". She felt that he did this for 5 minutes. He got up and said to her something along the lines of, "you'll learn not to be disrespectful" and then left. She felt pain and was crying after he left. She said AM had something like a party on Saturday, it was a large and there were a number of kids from school. She still felt pain in the vagina that day. 3. The alleged incident is triggered around 3 matters. Firstly, a large birthday party held on the Saturday in 2009. I have rejected this evidence. Secondly, KG packing a lunch for her on the Friday, and LP not eating all of it. I have previously rejected the criticisms made by Mr Cusack in relation to the complainant's memory of precisely what was packed in the lunch. I did so as a matter of common sense namely that because of what occurred due to her failing to eat the packed lunch, it was something that stood out in her memory. KG in cross-examination did not recall making lunch for LP but said, "it's possible, but I don't recall. It was such a long time ago." Thirdly, that crab was served for dinner which she could not eat. TP gave evidence that her daughter had an iodine allergy. In cross-examination KG was asked, "Q. do you recall a dinner when LP was there where crabs were cooked up, but she couldn't eat them because she had an allergy? A. Not specifically, but it's possible." 1. I do not accept that LP stayed over for three nights on Thursday, Friday and Saturday in 2009 when AM had a birthday. On balance I accept that KG may have made a school lunch for her and that crabs may have been served for dinner, although the accused denied serving crabs to children, but he did keep crab pots and had a boat to retrieve those pots. 2. On balance I accept LP's evidence that she was digitally penetrated by the accused. Count 26 and Count 27 1. I have at the request of the Crown directed not guilty verdicts. Count 28: attempted sexual intercourse contrary to s 66B. 1. On a Saturday in November 2009, LP was dropped off to the accused's house on her stepfather's motorbike. BF was also staying overnight. After dinner her, AM, BF and BF's two brothers watched a movie on the lounge. She sat on a blowup mattress in the middle of the lounge room with the accused. She shared a blanket with the accused. She fell asleep during the movie and woke up to the accused taking his pants off. He stood next to the mattress. The TV was still on, and the other four kids were sleeping. He pulled her shorts and underwear down to her ankles. She was lying on her back on the mattress. He forcefully pushed her legs apart with his hands. He held his penis and tried to insert it into her vagina. He touched the outside of her vagina. She said, "please stop. I feel sick". A light or a door came open in the hallway. He jumped off the mattress, put his pants on and walked away into the bedroom. After this incident, she went down to KG's room and said she wanted to go home and felt sick. Her parents then came and picked up in their Nissan Navarra. On the way home she vomited in the back of the car. 2. TP gave evidence that her partner took the complainant to the accused's house on a motorbike. This evidence supports part of the narrative given by the complainant. TP gave evidence that she received a telephone call from AM's mother indicating that LP was unwell. Arrangements were made for LP to be picked up by TP's partner. It was LP's evidence that she had to clean up vomit in the car. This evidence is supportive of the complainant. 3. SJ, the accused's sister, gave the following evidence: Q. You indicated that there were times where you would sleep in the lounge room. Yes. Q. As at the lounge room where there were some leather lounges, but also the open area with the dining table? A. That's right. Q. And you and the kids would sleep in the lounges; is that right? A. No, I would sleep on the lounge, the kids would be on a bed. Q. Where would that bed be? A. In the lounge room. Q. On the floor in front of the lounge. A. Like the lounge room/dining room. They were camping beds. There was two big ones; two double ones." (Transcript 9 April 2024, (1-17)) 1. The above evidence is supportive of the complainant that the incident took place on a mattress in the lounge room. I'm satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this incident occurred. MC Complaint 1. The first person MC told was her friend/roommate CW in 2021. She told her that something had happened between her and the accused when she was young. She said the accused had touched her but did not explain details. She was asked if she had a conversation with her mother after telling CW. She said no. Her memory was refreshed on paragraphs 40-41 of her statement. She then said CW had disclosed what she told her to her mother. Her mother called her asking if she had anything to tell her. She felt upset and a bit angry at CW for telling her mum, but also relieved. She told her that the accused touched her when she was younger. Her mother told her to tell the police. She did not speak to the police until they contacted her to make a statement. Police contacted her to make a statement and she immediately called her mother to ask if she had told them anything. She felt really upset and angry thinking that her mother had contacted the police. 2. The complaint was delayed. I direct myself in accordance with s 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act that the delay in complaining does not necessarily indicate that the allegations are false. I consider that there may be good reason why a victim of a sexual assault may hesitate in making a complaint. 3. I consider the evidence of complaint in two ways. Firstly, it strengthens the credibility of the complainant and secondly it may be used in proof of an offence. Criticism of her evidence 1. Ms Cusack submits that the pool episode has to be viewed with some scepticism in terms of the mechanics of what MC said happened. The launching into the air occurred with his hands under her armpits. His hands would never be near her vagina. She talked about launching from his knees. In another version she talked about standing on the ground and not on his knees. Ms Cusack submits that it is improbable that you could launch someone from the ground with your hands underneath their arms and then quickly slide your hands down underneath her swimmers. She further submits BF's evidence about seeing something happening in the pool was equally vague in terms of what she said she saw because she described MC on the accused's back. 2. In relation to the allegation of the accused sending an image of him masturbating to MC, Ms Cusack submits that her mother monitored her communications. The accused was aware that MC's mother monitored her communications. She asked rhetorically, why would the accused send an image of himself when he knows there is a probability someone might see it? She submits MC did not complain to her mother or her close friend about this incident. It was only after some to-ing and fro-ing with the police that it came to light. Counts 39 and 40: assault committing an act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2), commit an act of indecency towards MC contrary to s 61N(1). 1. One night during a sleepover at the accused's house, MC was asleep on the right side of AM's bed. He came in and stood in the gap in between the wall and AM's bed. He stood with one leg up on the bed and stroked his penis with his hands. She noticed this continue for about five minutes. He tried to touch her leg and once he did this, she turned around and pretended to be asleep. AM was asleep next to her. 2. It was the evidence of the accused that the bed was against the wall and there was no gap. This conflicts with KG's evidence that during the period from when AM was in kindergarten to high school, there were times when her bed was against the wall and times where there was a bit of a gap. (Transcript 9 April 2024, p 936(48)) 3. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the incident took place. Count 41: commit an act of indecency towards MC contrary to s 61N(1). 1. There was another occasion where she sat on the edge of AM's bed facing the door, and the accused would be opposite the hallway, in the bathroom. The bathroom door was slightly open. She could see the accused stroking his penis while naked and videotaping himself. She thought it was gross and shut AM's bedroom door. 2. It was my understanding of the evidence that if one sat on the end of AM's bed, then one could see some of the bathroom if the bathroom door was open. The accused in cross-examination agreed that he would masturbate in the bathroom, but he said he did so with the door closed. 3. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the incident took place. Count 42: transmit indecent material contrary to s 474.27A(1) Criminal Code Act 1995. 1. The accused added MC on Snapchat around 2012 or 2013, and she accepted. She used Snapchat to communicate with the accused when she was not staying at their place. She recalled a time when she was staying at the accused's place. He was in the bathroom, and she received a video on Snapchat of him stroking his penis in the shower. She recognised his big gold bracelet on his right hand and gold watch on his left, his multiple rings and the shower layout. The Snapchat had a silly emoji attached to it. She responded saying it was gross, and he replied saying it is normal. She was in year 3 or 4 at the time. 2. MC's mother, SB monitored her social media applications. There was no evidence from SB that she saw this video. The accused was aware that SB monitored her daughter's social media applications. There is no supportive evidence of the complainant. This allegation did not form part of the complaint to her mother or best friend. 3. Even with these deficiencies I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the incident occurred. Count 43: assault committing an act of indecency contrary to s 61M(2). 1. On one occasion, the accused was in the pool with MC, AM and BF. He played in the pool with her by lifting her up and throwing her into the deep end. Her back would be facing him as he did this. He held her at her armpits and then his hands went down to her hips to throw her. As he picked up, his hands went inside her swimmers, and he touched her between her bottom and her vagina. 2. I accept Ms Cusack's argument that the complainant gave different versions about how she was launched into the air. One version revolved around launching from the ground and the other version revolved around launching from his knees. On either version it is improbable that he would have been able to place his hands under her swimmers during the launch process. 3. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this incident occurred, accordingly I find the accused not guilty of Count 43. Count 44 and 45: sexual intercourse aggravated contrary to s 61J(1) (digital penetration), alternate sexual intercourse contrary to s 66C(1) 1. On the occasion referred to in Count 43, she said that she squirmed out of his hands when he touched her bottom before he could push herself out of the water. She went back and he then inserted a finger or two fingers inside her vagina. While he did this, his other hand was on his hip. His fingers were inside for about 2 or 3 seconds. She felt this hurt. He then removed his fingers and launched her into the water. She swam to the end and got out. She felt very sore in around her vagina. Her mum then came and picked her up. She thought she might have been getting her period for the first time as she was very sore. 2. There is evidence that MC developed early and had her first period when she was 10 years of age. The date range of the indictment is 14 March 2014 and 15 March 2017, whereby the complainant would be between 11 and 13 years of age at the time of this incident. 3. The criticism made by Ms Cusack in relation to Count 43 applies with the same force to Counts 44 and 45. Although she says that after he touched her bottom, she squirmed out and then returned where he placed his fingers in her vagina, it does not accord with the launch process that she described whereby his hands were under her armpits. However, it is open on one view of the evidence that after she had moved away and returned, his hands were still under the water, and he had not proceeded to the launch position. It is in those circumstances, he may have placed his fingers in her vagina. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I accept that this incident occurred. Context evidence 1. MC was playing in the garage with AM and BF. AM left the room. The accused walked into the room and said to BF and her, "you guys should kiss." She felt compelled to do so. Her and BF pecked on the lips as the accused stood on the stairs laughing. After they kissed, he laughed and said, "no. Like a real kiss." She and BF then proceeded to kiss with their tongues. He stood there last and walked away. 2. BF did not give any evidence of a kiss taking place in the garage. I reject MC's evidence that such a kiss took place. Conclusion The accused's evidence 1. It is important that I understand that the accused must be found not guilty if his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to any reasonable doubt that I have at the end of my deliberations. 2. The accused has given evidence. If I believe his evidence, I must acquit. If I find difficulty accepting his evidence but I think it might be true, then I must acquit. 3. If I think the accused probably did what is alleged, then that is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof known to the law. I may suspect that the accused has done what is alleged but, suspicions form no part in the criminal law. 4. A verdict of not guilty does not mean a finding of innocence. 5. Ms Crown in her final address identified several reasons why I should reject beyond reasonable doubt the evidence of the accused. I take those matters into account in assessing the evidence of the accused. 6. There were two troubling aspects of the accused's evidence. On 29 January 2021, AR telephoned the accused. The call was recorded and became Exhibit 2. Part of the conversation is as follows: AR: I just want to know why you picked me? Why did you do it to me? Accused: I don't know what you're talking about. What are you talking about? AR: when I was little, why did you torment me like that? Accused: I didn't torment ya AR: yes you did. Accused: not at all. AR: why not anyone else? Accused: I don't know what you're talking about. AR: you know exactly what I'm talking about. Accused: I have no idea. 1. The accused terminated the call. The accused made a denial. The accused had the telephone number of the caller. On 4 February 2021, he sent several Snapchat messages to that number which were photographed and became Exhibit 3. The final message sent from the accused phone reads, "I was in love with you back then and just could not be around you even tho I liked it so much hence our eventual split." The accused says that he sent the messages in this exchange over a 3-hour period except the final message. 2. In summary, the accused's evidence was that he did not know who he was sending the message to. He was trying to fish out whether he was being scammed. He had been scammed before on social media. He understood scams to mean when "people pretended to be someone they're not and down the track they want you to invest money." When he sent the messages he was working as a cabdriver. Between 7:40pm and 8:27pm he was with customers. He did not know who he was talking to and was seeing if it was somebody trying to blackmail him. They could have been blackmailing about anything, he just did not know. He agreed that he had seen the picture sent of herself on Snapchat. He was not convinced it was her. He was asked why he offered money as a helping hand. He responded, "just to see if someone was trying to scam me." He was talking to fellow taxi drivers at the hospital and showed them the picture and explained that he thought someone was trying to blackmail him. He was asked about the message at 9:36pm which says, "I was in love with you back then and just could not be around you even tho I liked it so much hence our eventual split." He denied sending this message. He said he thought it was sent by a man called Grubb who worked with him also as a cab driver. Grubb was listed in his contacts on his phone. He had given his phone to the other cab drivers, and they were checking out the photo that AR sent of herself. He did not check to see if they had written anything on his phone. He found out about the message when he was served with the paperwork from the police. 3. In cross-examination he denied that the photograph of AR on page 15 of Exhibit 3 was the one that was sent. He believed that the picture she sent was a full-body picture of herself wearing a pink silk nightie. None of this was put to AR. He showed the photograph of AR in the pink nightie to a group of guys at the cab rank, and they ogled over it. He denied knowing it was AR in the early part of the conversation. He denied offering her a helping hand to keep her quiet. He was asked about his reference to legality issues. He said, "because I don't know it's the kid next door. I'm presuming someone is trying to blackmail me." He agreed that he was the first person in the conversation to offer money. He said that his reference to a form for AR to sign was him fishing. He strongly suspected he was talking to AR's mother. He was asked about him saying, "the money is a helping hand." He denied it was a bribe to shut AR up. He said he was still fishing. 4. The Crown relied upon these messages as partial admissions made by the accused. Ms Cusack submitted, "you may not think that his evidence is particularly plausible in relation to why he was contacting this person, however, the messages don't flow continuously and as pointed out, there is a block of time in between the last message and the message before that where he says he's going off to get a customer and then there is a break of about 40 minutes which he says he didn't see." She submitted that the image sent of a young girl wearing a dressing gown was provocative and it is plausible that the accused showed it to his friends. 5. Even if I accept that evidence, I find it implausible that 'Grubb' or another person sent the final message. It enlivens my suspicions about the accused. The Crown says that his denial of sending the final message goes to his credit and a general sense of wrongdoing. The Crown said, "I'm not pointing to it as a consciousness of guilt of a particular element…" (Transcript 11 April 2024, p 995(21)). 6. I set the accused's evidence to one side. However, I must still assess the denials made by the accused to the offences. It does not follow that although I find his explanation of the Snapchat messages with AR (Exhibit 3) to be implausible, that I should reject all of his evidence. The accused is like any witness, I may reject part of his evidence and accept part of his evidence, if that evidence is worthy of acceptance. 7. Exhibit 32 was a recording showing the accused sitting on the same chair directly behind BF. In cross-examination he said the girls would sit beside him, not in front of him, on the same chair. Later in his evidence, he said he believed the evidence he gave about never having the girls in front of him on the chair was true before he was shown the video. In light of that evidence, I could not be satisfied that it was a deliberate lie. 8. He denied he knew about the video before he gave evidence in the trial. There was a break in proceedings and then he admitted he was made aware of the video recently. It is a matter of credit. It does not mean that I should reject his denials. 9. The accused has denied the offences. His denials were tested in cross-examination. He maintained those denials. 10. To find the accused guilty I would have to reject his denials beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Did the accused probably commit the offences? Yes. Am I highly suspicious of the accused? Yes. One must bear in mind that proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof known to the law. I have found difficulty accepting the accused's evidence, but I think it might be true. In coming to that conclusion, I am obliged to find the accused not guilty. ORDERS 1. Verdicts of not guilty are entered to Counts 1 to 45. 2. The accused is to be released immediately. ********** 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: 26 April 2024