R v THACH [2026] SADC 45

Prosecution: R Counsel: MR S ADAMS - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Accused: SOKHA THACH Counsel: MR S APPS - Solicitor: NORTHSIDE LAWYERS Hearing Date/s: 04/11/2025 to 06/11/2025, 10/11/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-25-013484 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment 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 in which it was generated. R v THACH Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2026] SADC 45 Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Schammer 5 May 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY - GENERALLY CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CHARACTER AND PRIOR CONVICTIONS The accused, Sokha Thach, is charged with one count of Aggravated Indecent Assault, one count of Rape and one count of Unlawful Sexual intercourse by a Person in Authority (charged in the alternative). The complainant, SF, was a 16 year old casual employee of the accused. SF, along with other members of her extended family, worked for the accused, packing tomatoes at premises at Buckland Park. On 25 June 2024, SF worked a shift for the accused at the premises between approximately 6:30pm and 11:00pm. She was the only member of her family working that shift. At the completion of her shift, the accused drove SF home to her family’s house at Two Wells. The accused had previously driven SF and her sister home from work, however this was the first time the accused had driven SF home from work, when she was by herself. There is no dispute that rather than drive SF directly from the premises to her house, the accused deviated and took a route which went via a nearby OTR, the Bendigo Bank and unsealed side streets. There is no dispute that the accused drove slowly during the journey and that he stopped and parked his vehicle on the side of the road, a short distance by car, but a considerable distance by foot, from SF's house. SF alleges that the offending occurred in the vehicle when it was parked in that location. -- 1 of 68 -- SF alleges that the accused touched her on the breast, both over and under her clothing and then inserted at least three of his fingers into her vagina, without her consent. The accused then drove her home. When SF arrived home, she phoned her very close friend, KD and disclosed the alleged offending to her. Shortly thereafter, SF disclosed the alleged offending, in more detail, to her mother. The accused was arrested at his home at 5:14am that day. The accused gave evidence denying the offending and denying various uncharged acts that SF alleged had occurred in the car, during the journey home. Verdict: The accused is guilty of counts 1 and 2 on the Information. Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 47, 57(1), 57(2), 57(3)(b), 57(4)(h), 75; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13A(12), 13BA, 34L, 34M, 34M(4), 34N; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 74EB, referred to. R v Molloy [2014] SADC 141; R v MJJ; R v CJN (2013) 117 SASR 81; Nelson (A Pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 79, considered. -- 2 of 68 -- R v THACH [2026] SADC 45 Introduction 1 The accused, Sokha Thach, is charged on an Information dated 5 June 2025 with one count of aggravated indecent assault, one count of rape and, in the alternative, one count of unlawful sexual intercourse by a person in a position of authority. 2 The complainant in each count is SF. At the time of the alleged offending, SF was aged 16 and was employed by the accused on a casual basis as a vegetable packer. 3 The offending is alleged to have occurred late on 25 June 2024, in the accused’s car, when the accused was driving SF home from work. 4 The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927. The Charges Count 1 Offence Details Aggravated Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars Sokha Thach on the 25th day of June 2024 at Two Wells, indecently assaulted SF, by touching her breasts. Circumstances of Aggravation It is further alleged that SF was under the age of 17 years at the time of the offence. Prescribed, Qualifying, Disqualification and/or Presumptive Disqualification Offence This may be a ‘prescribed offence’ within the meaning of sections 5 and 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016. This may be a ‘disqualification offence’ within the meaning of sections 18A and 18U of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. Count 2 Offence Details Rape. (Section 48 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars -- 3 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 2 Sokha Thach on the 25th day of June 2024 at Two Wells, engaged or continued to engage in sexual intercourse with SF by inserting his fingers into her vagina without her consent, knowing or being recklessly indifferent to the fact she was not so consenting. Prescribed, Qualifying, Disqualification and/or Presumptive Disqualification Offence This may be a presumptive disqualification offence within the meaning of sections 26A and 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016. This may be a presumptive disqualification offence within the meaning of sections 18A and 18U of the Disability Act 2018. Count 3 Offence Details Unlawful Sexual Intercourse by a Person in Authority. (Section 49(5) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars Sokha Thach on the 25th day of June 2024 at Two Wells, being in a position of authority in relation to SF, a person under the age of 18 years, had sexual intercourse with her, by inserting his fingers into her vagina. This may be a ‘prescribed offence’ within the meaning of sections 5 and 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016. This may be a ‘disqualification offence’ within the meaning of sections 18A and 18U of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. Elements of the Charged Offences Count 1 - Aggravated Indecent Assault 5 The offence of aggravated indecent assault comprises three elements which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: 1. The accused assaulted SF. An assault is the intentional and unlawful application of force (directly or indirectly) to another person; 2. The assault occurred in or was accompanied by circumstances of indecency. It is a matter for me to consider whether the proven conduct of the accused is indecent by reference to reasonable contemporary standards. The conduct must have a sexual connotation; and 3. At the time of the assault, SF was under the age of 17 years. 6 It was an agreed fact that SF was born on 23 December 2007 and as such she was aged 16 as at the date of the alleged offending.1 1 T 20.23; T 113.10-11. -- 4 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 3 7 Pursuant to s 57(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (‘the Act’), no person under the age of 17 years is deemed capable of consenting to an indecent assault. However, pursuant to s 57(3)(b) of the Act, if the person is between the ages of 16 and 17, consent is a defence to a charge of indecent assault if the accused proves that at the time of the indecent assault, he believed on reasonable grounds that SF was of or above the age of 17 years. Although the accused gave evidence, he gave no evidence as to what he believed to be SF’s age as at the date of the alleged offending. 8 In addition, pursuant to s 57(1) of the Act, a person under the age of 18 years will be taken not to be capable of consenting to an indecent assault committed by a person who is in a position of authority in relation to them. 9 It was an agreed fact that as at the date of the alleged offending, the accused was SF’s employer.2 As such, by definition, the accused was a person in a position of authority in relation to SF within the meaning of s 57(4)(h). 10 As such, the issue of consent is irrelevant to count 1. Count 2 - Rape 11 The offence of rape comprises three elements which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) an act of sexual intercourse took place between the accused and SF; (2) SF did not consent to engaging in sexual intercourse; and (3) the accused knew or was recklessly indifferent to the fact that SF was not consenting. 12 ‘Sexual intercourse’ includes any activity involving or consisting of the penetration of a person’s vagina or labia majora, by any part of the body of another person, or by any object and includes the continuation of such activity. 13 As to the second element of the offence, consent to sexual intercourse must be freely and voluntarily given. 14 It is not necessary for a person to demonstrate that they do not consent, for example, by protesting or physically resisting, nor is it necessary for a person to be physically injured in the course of sexual activity to indicate a lack of consent. 15 The third element of the offence relates to the accused’s state of mind. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that SF was not consenting, or that he was recklessly indifferent to the fact she was not consenting. As to the latter, the prosecution will establish the accused was 2 T 113.7-9. -- 5 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 4 ‘recklessly indifferent’ to the fact SF was not consenting, if it proves beyond reasonable doubt either:3 (a) that the accused was aware of the possibility that SF might not be consenting to sexual intercourse, but decided to proceed regardless of that possibility; or (b) that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether SF did in fact consent to the activity, or had withdrawn consent, before deciding to proceed; or (c) that the accused did not give any thought as to whether or not SF was consenting, or had withdrawn consent, but proceeded regardless. 16 The defence case was that no sexual intercourse took place between the accused and SF on the date as alleged. 17 However, the very fact that count 3 is charged in the alternative demonstrates that SF’s lack of consent is in issue. 18 As such, insofar as is necessary, I direct myself in accordance with the requirements of s 34N of the Evidence Act (SA) 1929 (EA). Count 3 - Unlawful Sexual Intercourse by a Person in Authority 19 There are three elements of this offence, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: 1. the accused had sexual intercourse with SF; 2. SF was under the age of 18 years at the time; and 3. the accused was in a position of authority in relation to SF. Statutory alternatives – counts 2 and 3 20 There is a statutory alternative to the offences charged in counts 2 and 3. 21 Pursuant to s 75 of the Act, if the trier of fact is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence as charged but is satisfied that he is guilty of indecent assault,4 then the Court must find the accused not guilty of the offence charged but may find the accused guilty of the lesser offence.5 3 Section 47 of the Act. 4 See elements hereunder. If the circumstance of aggravation is proved the appropriate alternative charge is aggravated indecent assault; R v Molloy [2014] SADC 141. 5 Noting this is premised on the basis that there is a case to answer as to the offence charged, R v MJJ; R v CJN (2013) 117 SASR 81 at [68]. -- 6 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 5 Witnesses and Exhibits 22 The prosecution called evidence from SF. SF was aged 17 at the time of trial. 23 Part of SF’s evidence-in-chief comprised an edited audio-visual recording of a prescribed interview conducted between her and a police officer, Officer Wills on 5 July 2024 (the SF interview).6 In addition, evidence was called from: 1. SF’s friend, KD, to whom SF made the initial complaint with respect to the alleged offending; 2. KG, SF’s mother; 3. TT, SF’s brother-in-law; 4. Detective Brevet Sergeant J Leverington, the investigating officer (Officer Leverington); and 5. Dr Zoe Teh, who examined the complainant at Yarrow Place the morning after the alleged offending. 24 Several agreed facts which read onto the transcript by the prosecutor and defence counsel and various exhibits were tendered, including various photographs,7 an overhead Google Map depicting SF’s home and the location of the packing shed where she worked for the accused8 and a Google Map depicting the route the accused travelled to get from SF’s home to his home, in Salisbury, after the alleged offending.9 25 The accused elected to give evidence and called evidence from one of his workers, Tan Su Ly, to corroborate evidence given by the accused as to mechanical issues he claimed to have been experiencing with his car, a Holden Rodeo Utility, at the time of the alleged offending. Legal Directions General 26 The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is not for the accused to prove that he did not commit the offence(s) as charged. 27 As to each count, the accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the charge unless and until the evidence that I accept satisfies me that every element of the 6 Exhibit P1, the transcript of which was provided as an Aide, MFIP2. For ease of reference, I will use the transcript to identify passages in that evidence, noting the evidence is what can be seen and heard on the audio-visual recording, not what is in the transcript. 7 Exhibits P4, P7 and P8. 8 Exhibit P3. 9 Exhibit P12. -- 7 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 6 offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt will suffice. 28 There are three counts on the Information. I must assess these counts separately and only take into account the evidence that is relevant and admissible to the count under consideration. 29 As to each count, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a suspicion of guilt or to show that the accused is probably guilty. Before the accused is convicted of an offence, I must be satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of that offence. I must reject beyond reasonable doubt the accused’s denial and any explanation(s) proffered by him. 30 In these reasons, if I use the words ‘proved’, ‘established’ or ‘satisfied’, I mean to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. As to each count, considered separately, if I am satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused, or I am uncertain where the truth lies, then I must find the charge has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 31 I must assess each witness as to their truthfulness and their reliability. I must determine whether I can rely upon the evidence that a witness gives. I can reject or accept all or a part of a witness’s evidence. 32 TT gave his evidence via video link from interstate. I must not draw any inference adverse to the accused because of this, nor allow the admission of the evidence in that form to influence the weight given to that evidence. 33 I must not speculate about the nature of any evidence I have not heard. I simply do not know what evidence may have been given by any absent witness. I must decide the case only on the evidence before me. 34 The accused was under no obligation to give evidence. I should give him whatever credit I see fit for subjecting himself to cross-examination at trial. I must assess his evidence in the same way as I assess the evidence of any other witness. I remind myself that if I reject the accused’s evidence in its entirety, that does not bolster, nor strengthen the prosecution case. The prosecution must prove each element of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. 35 As to the making of inferences, I must not guess or speculate. There must be a logical and rational connection between the facts I find and the inferences I draw. 36 I must bring an open and unprejudiced mind to the case. I must make my decision without sympathy, without prejudice, or fear and must not be influenced by public opinion in relation to this matter. SF’s evidence 37 The SF interview was conducted on 5 July 2024, when SF was aged 16. An audio-visual recording was made of that record of interview. There is no -- 8 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 7 dispute that the interview was made in accordance with s 74EB of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SOA). 38 An edited copy of the audio-visual recording of the SF interview was admitted into evidence pursuant to s 13BA of the EA. I must not draw any inference adverse to the accused because of this, nor allow the admission of the evidence in that form to influence the weight given to that evidence.10 39 Permission was granted for the prosecution to lead further evidence from SF by way of evidence-in-chief and re-examination and for the accused to cross- examine SF, on various specific topics. SF gave her evidence via audio-visual link from outside of court with a court companion. The Court was closed during her evidence and her evidence was recorded. I must not draw any inference adverse to the accused, nor allow those special arrangements, to influence the weight given to that evidence.11 40 Insofar as was necessary, permission was sought, and granted, for evidence to be led pursuant to s 34L of the EA as to SF’s sexual activities before the alleged offending, the Court being satisfied that such evidence was of substantive probative value and that its admission was in the interests of justice. Complaint evidence 41 SF gave evidence that when she arrived home, after the alleged offending, she called her friend, KD, and told her about the alleged offending. KD also gave evidence of that telephone conversation. This evidence was admitted as evidence of initial complaint pursuant to s 34M of the EA. 42 KD gave evidence that she told SF to tell her mother. Shortly thereafter, SF told her mother, KG, about the alleged offending, at which time she provided more details as to what had occurred, than she had provided to KD. Both SF and KG gave evidence about this discussion. This evidence was also admitted pursuant to s 34M, it including information provided by way of elaboration of the initial complaint. 43 Evidence of initial complaint is admissible pursuant to s 34M(4). SF, KD and KG all gave evidence to the effect that SF was distressed when making these complaints. Using the language of the majority in Nelson (A Pseudonym) v The King,12 that distress was ‘part and parcel’ of the complaint, meaning its admissibility (and use) is also governed by s 34M(4). 44 The evidence of initial complaint and any distress exhibited by SF at the time of such complaint is admitted to inform me as to how the allegations first came to light and as evidence of the degree of consistency of SF’s conduct. 10 Section 13A(12) EA. 11 Ibid. 12 [2025] SASCA 79 at [169]. -- 9 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 8 45 Importantly, this evidence is not admitted as evidence of the truth of what was alleged and cannot be used as some form of independent evidence to prove what happened, as, only SF’s evidence as to the allegations of the specific offending against her, is able to prove that. 46 There may be many and varied reasons why an alleged victim of a sexual offence has made a complaint at a particular time or to a particular person. It is for me to determine the significance (if any) of the evidence in the circumstances of this case. Evidence of good character 47 The accused gave unchallenged evidence that he had no prior criminal history in Australia, nor had he ever been in trouble with the police, prior to the alleged offending.13 48 This is evidence of ‘good character’, which is relevant both to the probability that the accused committed any of the alleged offences and to the Court’s assessment of the credibility of his ongoing denial of the alleged offending. 49 It is a factor affecting whether there is a reasonable explanation on the evidence consistent with the accused being innocent of any count. 50 Of course, if the Court finds that the accused is a man of prior good character, this does not mean it must find him not guilty of any alleged offence. Sometimes persons of previous good character do offend. Discreditable conduct 51 SF gave evidence that the accused offered her a cigarette prior to the alleged offending. The accused gave evidence that he acceded to SF’s request for him to give her a cigarette, after they finished work and again, when they were in his car, as he drove her home. 52 It is illegal to supply tobacco to a person under the age of 18. SF was aged 16 at the relevant time. As such, this is evidence of discreditable conduct. 53 The evidence was relevant and admissible for a permissible non-propensity purpose, namely, to give context to the circumstances in which the alleged offending occurred. 54 SF also gave evidence that while the accused was driving her home, and the vehicle was in motion, before he stopped the vehicle and committed the alleged offending, he played with her hair, touched her on the back of the neck, kissed her on the neck and cheek, touched her on the inner thigh and touched her on the breasts. These were all uncharged acts and did not comprise conduct constituting the alleged offending. As such, this is evidence of discreditable conduct. 13 T 128.38-129.5. -- 10 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 9 55 This evidence was relevant and admissible for a permissible non-propensity purpose, namely, to give context to the circumstances in which the alleged offending occurred, insofar as it did not occur ‘out of the blue’, or, to put it another way, in the absence of there being any prior sexual contact between the accused and SF in the car, during the journey home. 56 SF also gave evidence that after the alleged offending, the accused offered her money in exchange for penile vaginal intercourse, being evidence of another uncharged act and evidence of discreditable conduct. This evidence was also relevant and admissible for a permissible non-propensity purpose, namely, to give context to the circumstances in which the offending occurred and how it concluded. 57 If I accept the discreditable conduct evidence, I must only use it for the permissible purpose or purposes as specified. I must not use the evidence to reason that the accused is more likely to have committed any of the offences because of this conduct. Further, I must not reason from this evidence that the accused is a person of bad character and is therefore the type of person who would commit any of the alleged offences. 58 I am satisfied that the permissible use of the discreditable conduct evidence, in each instance, is and can be kept sufficiently separate and distinct from the impermissible use so as to remove any appreciable risk of the evidence being used for that purpose. 59 If any of the discreditable conduct evidence is essential to the process of reasoning leading to a finding of guilt, the evidence cannot be used unless on the whole of the evidence, the facts in proof of which the evidence was admitted, are established beyond reasonable doubt. Lies 60 The accused gave evidence that he drove slowly and took the back streets when he drove SF home from work, on the night of the alleged offending, because he was experiencing mechanical issues with his car. The way in which the accused was cross-examined about this, and the closing submissions made by the prosecutor, suggested that the Court should make a finding that the accused had lied about this. Similarly, it was suggested the accused had lied in his explanation as to why he thought it necessary to drive SF home via the OTR, and insofar as he claimed she asked him to stop the car on Horseshoe Crescent and asked him to give her a cigarette. 61 Insofar as it may be suggested that the accused lied about these matters in his evidence to the Court, I remind myself that whether the accused has told a lie or lies is a matter for me to determine. If I am satisfied the accused has lied, this is relevant and can be used in my assessment of the accused’s credibility. However, I cannot use this as evidence of his guilt. If I find the accused has lied, it does not add to the prosecution case. It remains for me to determine, having regard to all of -- 11 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 10 the evidence, whether the evidence is sufficient to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt. Motive to lie 62 It was part of the defence case that SF had a motive to lie about the alleged offending. That motive was not expressly articulated but was premised on an assertion that SF was upset and agitated throughout the night at work, because she had just discovered her boyfriend having sex with her best friend. 63 It was the accused’s case that SF had told him about this when they were in the car, stopped on the side of Horseshoe Crescent. It was the accused’s case that SF was upset and angry and said to the accused that ‘all men are the same’.14 The inference from this evidence was that SF had lied about the alleged offending as some sort of revenge at men, in general. 64 Ancillary to this was a suggestion that SF’s performance at work that night had been below standard, albeit there was no evidence that the accused had reprimanded SF about this, or discussed that with her, such as to possibly provide another alleged motive for her to lie. 65 I must take this potential motive for SF to lie into account, and the evidence in support of it, when assessing SF’s evidence. 66 However, if I reject the proposition that SF had any motive to lie, I remind myself that there is no onus on the accused to prove that SF had a reason to make false allegations against him. 67 The absence of any motive to lie, does not mean that SF is telling the truth about the alleged offending. There may be many reasons why a witness may lie. I must not treat SF’s evidence as being any more credible or believable just because there is no evidence to provide a reason for why she may be lying. I must carefully consider all of the evidence to determine whether I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to SF’s credibility and reliability. Undisputed matters 68 There was no dispute that at the time of the alleged offending: • SF’s family lived in a house located at the end of a long driveway on Horseshoe Crescent at Two Wells (the house);15 • SF was one of several members of her extended family who had worked for the accused, on a casual basis, packing tomatoes, at his workshop located at 14 T 148.28. 15 The location of the house is identified on Exhibit P3. -- 12 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 11 165 Carmelo Road, Buckland Park.16 SF’s friend, KD, also worked there for a short period of time;17 and • SF worked for the accused on the night of the alleged offending (25 June 2024) and after she finished work, the accused drove her home from work to the house, in his Holden Rodeo Utility. SF’s evidence Background 69 SF gave evidence that at the time of the offending, she was in Year 11 at high school. She attended school on a part time basis, through the ‘FLO’ program.18 70 SF gave unchallenged evidence that prior to the alleged offending, she had worked for the accused (who she knew as ‘Sok’) about eight to 10 times over a period of about a month. Her duties included packing tomatoes and general cleaning after tomatoes had been dropped.19 71 SF was paid in cash.20 If the accused did not have cash on him at the relevant time, SF, her sister and brother-in-law would meet the accused at the Virginia pub, at which time he would pay her.21 72 SF told Officer Wills that things were ‘fine’ at work before the alleged offending. She described the accused as ‘nice’ and said he had never been rude or flirty towards her. She said he had been good to her and ‘had just been like a boss’.22 In cross-examination, she agreed that the accused was a good boss.23 73 SF never completed a job application for the accused. She never told him her age, nor had she heard anyone else say how old she was, in his presence. However, SF gave evidence that on the night of the alleged offending, the accused had asked her if she was still at school and she had told him that she was still in ‘FLO’.24 74 SF gave evidence-in-chief as to how her shifts with the accused were allocated. She said that before the accused had her number, he would contact her mum but once he had her number, he would contact her direct, the day of, or the night before, asking her to work. 25 75 At the time of the alleged offending, SF smoked cigarettes ‘every now and again’. She said she might smoke one or two cigarettes a day but never purchased 16 T 99.17-19; T 100.6-11. 17 T 79.38. 18 T 20.24-21.3. 19 MFIP2 at lines 111-124; T 25.36-26.11; T 40.14-16; T 42.3-27. 20 T 42.30-32. 21 T 65.5-13. 22 MFIP2 at line 278. 23 T 51.23-24. 24 T 21.9-30. 25 T 27.9-19. -- 13 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 12 her own cigarettes, as she was not much of a smoker. She always got her cigarettes from other people.26 76 SF was asked if she had ever smoked when she was at work, in the accused’s presence. She said she could not remember ever smoking a cigarette at work, although she did have her ‘vape’ with her, and would sometimes vape at work when she was on a break.27 SF’s shift on 25 June 2024 77 SF gave evidence that the accused had asked her to work the shift on 25 June 2024, a couple of days before the shift. She could not recall if he had asked her in person or by phone.28 78 SF was cross-examined at some length on this topic. She maintained that the accused had asked her, about a day or two beforehand, if she was free to come in to work that night. She denied that she had been texting him, in the days prior, asking if he had any work. She disagreed that the accused had to wait for a grower to tell him if he had any tomatoes to pack, and that she had only learned that she would be required to work that night at about 4:30pm to 5:00pm that day.29 When asked if she was sure about that, she said:30 A. Yes, because I was at my boyfriend's a couple of days before work and he asked me if I could work and that's when I come all the way home just to work that night. 79 SF was asked if she could recall sending various text messages to the accused, on various dates, asking him if she could work, or what time she was required. She remembered sending some, but not all, of those messages. She was not shown a copy of any of these messages, notwithstanding the messages were ultimately relied upon as evidence as part of the accused’s case. However, SF agreed that there may have been occasions when she sent a text message to the accused, asking whether he had any work.31 80 On the day of the offending, SF had been at her boyfriend’s house. Her boyfriend’s mother drove her home and TT then drove her to work at the accused’s packing shed. SF arrived at work at around 6:20pm.32 No other members of her family were working that night. 33 It was intended that either her mum or TT would come and pick her up, after work. SF gave evidence that she was meant to contact them or they were going to call her when she finished.34 26 T 38.30-39.5. 27 T 52.8-19; T 74.9-12. 28 T 27.20-25. 29 T 42.33-44.19. 30 T 44.25-27. 31 T 46.4-8. 32 MFIP2 at line 52; T 47.10-29. 33 T 27.26-28. 34 T 47.33-48.1. -- 14 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 13 81 SF said there were no issues at all at work that night and ‘it was normal’. She was even working with the accused’s son that night.35 82 During cross-examination, SF denied that she was upset (for reasons other than the alleged offending), either when she was at work that night, or when she was in the accused’s car on the drive home.36 She also denied that she had dropped things at work, made mistakes at work or had trouble keeping up with the packing, that night.37 83 SF gave evidence that she did not smoke any cigarettes at work on the night of the alleged offending.38 She denied a proposition put to her that after she finished work that night, she asked the accused for a cigarette, and that he then gave her the last cigarette he had in his packet.39 Journey home with the accused 84 SF gave unchallenged evidence that prior to the night of the alleged offending, she and her sister had been driven home from work once, by the accused. The first time she had been given a lift home from work by the accused, by herself, was on the night of the alleged offending.40 85 SF told Officer Wills that she finished work that night at about 11:00pm. She then messaged her partner and instead of calling TT to take her home, the accused offered her a lift home, which she accepted, as she thought it would be easier.41 SF explained that everything had seemed fine at work that night, nothing seemed odd or made her think twice about accepting this offer.42 86 SF was adamant that she had not asked the accused for a lift home and that he had offered to drive her home.43 She could not remember if she had rung her family to tell them there was no need for them to come and get her.44 87 SF was asked in cross-examination, if she could recall messaging her boyfriend that night after she finished work. She said she may have done so once she got home but could not remember if she had messaged him straight after work. When she was reminded of what she had told Officer Wills, she agreed that she had messaged her boyfriend after finishing work.45 When she was asked if it had 35 MFI P2 at lines 287-290. 36 T 50.28-35; T 63.35-64.1. 37 T 50.36-51.5. 38 T 50.9-15. 39 T 51.10-19; T 51.28-35. 40 T 40.36-41.2. 41 MFIP2 at line 52. 42 Ibid at line 110. 43 T 38.3-25. 44 T 50.5-8. 45 T 49.24-27. -- 15 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 14 occurred to her to ask him or his family to pick her up and take her back to his house, she said, ‘No, they lived a bit away’.46 88 SF gave evidence that the accused’s car was a utility, which had a three-seater bench seat. She was sitting on the passenger side by the door. There was a small metal bench seat between her and the accused. Although SF initially agreed with a proposition put to her in cross-examination that they were both wearing their seatbelts, she clarified this by saying, ‘Well I know, I know I had mine on’.47 89 SF gave evidence that instead of driving the normal way to her house, the accused had turned right and driven a different way, towards the OTR at Virginia, as he wanted to get some cigarettes. She had not known that they were going to get smokes until they were already in the car. SF told Officer Wills that as they were driving towards the OTR, the accused took off her beanie and started to play with her hair and massage the back of her neck. During this time frame, he also kissed her on the back of the neck and on the cheek.48 90 After about two minutes, they arrived at the OTR. SF stayed in the car, while the accused went inside the OTR to buy cigarettes and some Red Bull.49 91 In cross-examination, SF agreed she sat in the car, alone, while the accused went into the OTR. She had not sent a message to anyone.50 She gave the following evidence:51 Q. In any event, a short time after you say he was driving along, playing with your hair, kissing your neck and cheek. A. Yes. Q. You sat there. A. What's a 16-year-old girl meant to do when a 47-year-old man is touching her? Q. You had your phone. A. Yeah. And I have asked him to stop touching me. 92 SF confirmed that the OTR was about five to seven minutes away from the house. She agreed that someone could have hopped in their car and come and picked her up from the OTR.52 93 SF gave evidence that after leaving the OTR, the accused drove a short distance to the Bendigo Bank, where he withdrew some money from the ATM. 46 T 49.38. 47 T 52.28-53.12. 48 MFIP2 at lines 88-100; T 53.30-54.1. 49 MFIP2 at line 102; T 53.13-23. 50 T 54.9-15. 51 T 54.34-55.4. 52 T 55.5-11. -- 16 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 15 She said while she was waiting in the car for him, a long-time friend had messaged her. This was at 11:27pm. She saw the message come in but did not message back.53 94 After they left the Bendigo Bank, instead of taking the main road towards her house, the accused had driven down another path, and turned down several side streets, before getting back onto the main road.54 SF described the accused as driving slowly, ‘down to forty instead of going one hundred and ten the whole way home and that is including the highway as well’.55 95 In cross-examination, SF clarified that when she told Officer Wills that the accused was driving slowly, she was talking about on the highway, rather than the side streets. She agreed that some of the side streets the accused had taken were unsealed. She said that all of those side streets were bumpy. She denied that the accused had told her he was having trouble with the ignition in his car and that the motor would cut out from time to time.56 96 SF gave evidence that when they got to the Virginia lights, the accused had to stop at a red light. He started touching her legs up and down on the inside of her right thigh. He was saying that she was warm and asked her if she had missed him. She said ‘no’ because she did not know what he meant by that.57 She said:58 Ah he was going closer and closer towards my vagina until the change of the lights … and I said “you can go now” and he took his hand off and he started doing his gears again and instead of driving one ten on the highway, he dropped to forty the whole way until Port Gawler turn off. 97 The accused had used his left hand while touching her on the thigh.59 98 In cross-examination, SF was asked if some friends of hers had ever had an accident at that spot and had collided with the light pole. She initially said, ‘not that I know of’ and then said ‘Oh, yeah, my friend did two years prior. My friend’s partner did.’60 After a short break, SF was further cross-examined on this topic. She gave the following evidence:61 Q. Before this night were you aware, or had you been told, of an occasion when a vehicle in which young people were travelling had collided with those traffic lights at what we call the Virginia lights. A. No. 53 MFIP2 at line 52; T 54.15-23. 54 T 57.25-37. 55 MFIP2 at lines 52 and 102. 56 T 58.4-59.21. 57 MFIP2 at lines 52-58 and lines 102-104. 58 Ibid at line 106. 59 T 28.9-13. 60 T 55.33-36. 61 T 59.28-60.10. -- 17 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 16 Q. That young people had in fact been taken away by ambulance. A. No. Q. Never heard of it, never thought of it. HER HONOUR Q. Was that a 'no'. A. No. XXN Q. I suggest that in that spot, or thereabouts, you told Sok words to this effect, that a friend of yours had been driving in a car which had collided with one of those traffic light posts. A. No. Q. And that one or more persons in that car had been admitted to hospital as a result. A. No. 99 SF told Officer Wills that from thereafter, the accused was driving slowly. She said he was ‘being weird, looking at me’. She recalled him leaning in close to the middle seat of the three-seater bench, wrapping his arm around her and pulling her closer towards him. He kept saying that she was warm.62 100 SF told Officer Wills that from the Port Gawler turn off, the accused turned down Horseshoe Crescent. He then stopped and parked the car, half on and half off the road, because he wanted to have a smoke. He took out two cigarettes and offered her one. He lit one and passed one to her. She had about two puffs of it and then ‘chucked it to him’ as she did not want it.63 101 SF identified the location where the accused had stopped the car, as being on the left-hand side of Horseshoe Crescent, on the grass, near a body of water and some solar panels.64 102 SF denied that she had asked the accused to stop the car. She denied that she had asked the accused for a smoke before she got home.65 She said that when the accused stopped the car, he took out two cigarettes and lit one and gave it to her. She said that as he went to light his, she gave hers back to him, as she did not want it.66 When asked if the accused had finished that cigarette, SF said, ‘I can’t 62 MFIP2 at line 138. 63 Ibid at lines 58 and 62. 64 T 24.12-25.11; T 25.18-35; Exhibits P3 at p 2; Exhibit P4 at p 5. 65 T 60.24-28. 66 T 61.18-19. -- 18 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 17 remember, a few minutes after that he was touching me’.67 She could not remember any conversation between them at that time.68 103 SF denied that while they were stopped on the side of Horseshoe Crescent, she had told the accused that a short time before, she had found her boyfriend having sex with a girl she knew. She denied being upset about matters other than the alleged assault.69 Alleged offending 104 The alleged offending had occurred while they were stopped in this location and after the accused had finished smoking the cigarette she had given back to him.70 105 SF told Officer Wills that the accused started touching her on the breasts, on top of her clothes. She said:71 … He then, after that, he started going from underneath from the top of my, um down my neck to touch my boobs and then switched the angle so that towards up under, underneath all my layers of clothes, upwards towards my boobs and started playing with them. And then after that he went under two layers of pants … Um he went under like, underneath two layers of clothes of my pants and starting playing with my clit and on top like everywhere else, of my vagina and then started going down three to four fingers into my hole for maybe about ten minutes and I just kept begging him to stop and take me home so I could have a shower. And then after about ten or fifteen minutes he finally stopped and listened and he started that engine and then asked if he could stick it in and I said “no” and then he asked again but then offered to pay money and then I proceeded to say “no” and then I started to cry and asked if he could take me home again … 106 When asked to provide more detail about how the accused had touched her breasts, she explained that at the start, he was squeezing them and going over the top of them with his hands. He had then stopped and gone down her stomach.72 She said:73 Ah that’s when he first made the move and leaned over and he did that first over the top and he swiped over it a few times um after that he went from the top of my jumper and my jacket and my long sleeve, downwards underneath my bra. He’s picked from underneath my bra up and starting squeezing my boobs and then started playing with only the left side, he did not touch the right side, but only touched the left side, then stopped and then he went straight down towards this way and went upwards, instead of from the neck way, he started, then he started going from underneath my bra again … say I’m warm and then started 67 T 62.11-12. 68 T 62.19-24. 69 T 63.24-64.1. 70 MFIP2 at line 144. 71 Ibid at lines 62 and 66. 72 Ibid at lines 153-158. 73 Ibid at line 162. -- 19 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 18 playing with my boobs again and then stopped and then starting going down, his hands down my stomach to get underneath my pants and then he started doing stuff under my pants and yeah, I ended up just crying and begging him to take me home. 107 SF explained that it was cold that night and she was wearing leggings and trackies as well as underwear. She said the accused had touched her ‘skin on skin’ on her stomach and when he reached her pants, he had grabbed the three layers of clothing. He went under two layers and touched her on top of her underwear, before going underneath her underwear, touching her clitoris and inserting three or four fingers into her vagina. She said she begged him and cried but he had continued ‘until he felt pleasured enough’.74 As to what she meant by this, she clarified that the accused stopped when he felt like it, or when he felt like he needed to stop.75 108 He started the car engine and asked her if he could stick his dick in her and she had said ‘no, can you please take me home’. She said:76 ... then he proceeded to pay me money, saying he would pay me more money if I fuck him and I said ‘no’ and started crying again ... 109 When asked by Officer Wills to clarify, again, what had happened, SF said that while the accused was touching and fingering her, she was sitting there crying. She did not say anything, she just cried.77 She explained that she felt frozen and as if she could not speak.78 She said:79 It just kept, it just kept hurting and I kept crying. And then I asked him to stop and take me home and he stopped and turned the engine on .... and then he offered to pay me money if he could stick it in and I said ‘no’ again and asked him to take me home. 110 Officer Wills asked SF if she had said anything to the accused when he first touched her breasts, under her clothing. She said she had asked him to stop; he then took his hand out and did stop for a second but then kept going. He had not said anything to her at that time.80 111 During her evidence-in-chief, SF was asked several questions about when she had told the accused to stop touching her breasts. She explained that she had told him multiple times, ‘when he first done it, and until he stopped.’ She estimated she had said this maybe five to six times and towards the beginning, the middle and the end of when he had touched her there. She had not otherwise physically reacted.81 She explained, for the first time, that they were still driving when the accused had first touched her breasts and that when he had first touched her breast, 74 Ibid at lines 165-174. 75 T 29.11-13. 76 MFIP2 at line 174. 77 Ibid at line 246. 78 Ibid at line 208. 79 Ibid at lines 210-212. 80 Ibid at lines 229-236. 81 T 27.29-28.8. -- 20 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 19 he had used his left hand.82 In cross-examination, she confirmed that this had occurred after the Virginia lights.83 112 SF told Officer Wills that after the accused had asked if he could ‘stick it in’ for money, he then started driving around the bend on Horseshoe Crescent and asked her which was her driveway. While driving along their long driveway, the accused asked her again if she missed him or if she was ever scared of him. She said she just sat there in silence, crying. He also asked her to contact him if she ever needed money or any help.84 113 SF said that when they finally reached the gate to her house, the accused gave her, her money, she grabbed her stuff, shut the car door and ran inside the house.85 The money he gave her was what she was owed for working that night.86 Her beanie was left in his car.87 114 When it was suggested to SF in cross-examination, that the accused had paid her a little bit more than what she was entitled to, she said, ‘no, not that I remember’.88 She agreed that after he paid her, he was up to date in terms of what he owed her.89 She also agreed that as she got out of the car, the accused gave her a bag of tomatoes and a can of Red Bull. She agreed that the accused had a common practice of asking her and her sister if they would like some produce.90 Initial complaint 115 SF told Officer Wills that when she ran inside, she had tried to wake her sister up, but she did not wake up. She then called her close friend, KD and told her that Sok had touched her. She explained that KD knew the accused as she had worked for him as well. KD told her that she loved her and told her to tell her mum or TT what had happened.91 116 In cross-examination, SF said that when she got home, TT was also asleep.92 117 SF said that before telling her mum, she went to the toilet. Her mum knocked on the bathroom door and asked if she could use the toilet before she had her shower. She unlocked the door and was crying. When her mum asked her what had happened, she told her, while crying in her arms.93 82 T 28.12-26. 83 T 66.35-37. 84 MFIP2 at lines 66-70 and lines 252-258. 85 Ibid at line 258. 86 T 64.2-21. 87 MFIP2 at line 90. 88 T 64.22-30. 89 T 64.35-65.4. 90 T 65.14-24. 91 MFIP2 at lines 258-264 and line 272. 92 T 66.5. 93 MFIP2 at lines 264-268. -- 21 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 20 118 SF was asked further questions during examination-in-chief relating to the circumstances in which she told her mother about the alleged offending. She said that she told her mother that the accused had hurt her. When her mother had asked her how he had hurt her, she told her mum that he had touched her in places that he should not have touched.94 SF explained that at this time she was in the bathroom, with her pants down, about to have a shower.95 Injuries/Examination at Yarrow Place 119 SF was asked if she had any injuries to her vaginal area, or any issues with pain or other sensations with her vagina before the alleged offending and she said she had not.96 When asked if she had noticed any injuries to her vaginal area after the alleged offending, she gave the following evidence:97 A. After it happened, yes. Q. How long after. A. Not long after, straightaway when I went to the toilet I had a burning sensation. Q. Did you have any other sensation. A. Stinging as well. Q. Was that whilst you were going to the toilet or whilst you were not going to the toilet. A. Whilst I was going to the toilet. Q. And when I say that I mean urinating. A. Yes. 120 SF gave evidence in cross-examination, that later that same day, she was examined by a doctor at Yarrow Place.98 She agreed that that the doctor had told her that they had found a couple of abrasions (or scratches) on her labia minora.99 121 SF gave evidence that she had told the doctor that she had had penile vaginal intercourse with her partner the night before the alleged offending.100 When it was suggested to her that she had told the doctor that she had sexual intercourse with her partner at about 3:00pm that afternoon, SF disagreed and said it was the night before. She said that was also the first thing she had told the police when they came to her house that night.101 She then gave the following evidence:102 94 T 29.28-30. 95 T 29.34-35. 96 T 30.7-12. 97 T 30.15-25. 98 T 38.27-29. 99 T 67.9-20. 100 T 67.21-23; T 68.15-17. 101 T 67.29-35. 102 T 67.36-68.11. -- 22 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 21 Q. I'm only asking about the doctor and I'm not going to ask everything that transpired with the doctor, but the doctor would ask you a question and note down something after you had told her, given her an answer. A. Yes. Q. And so all I'm asking you then is, did you say to the doctor that you'd had - words to the effect, you'd had coitus at 3 p.m. on the 25th of June, originally you said with your partner. A. Yeah, I would assume so if I told her I'd had intercourse that day. Q. Yes, so that if you told her that, given it was closer to the time, that's more likely to have been accurate. A. Yeah. KD’s evidence 122 KD gave evidence that as at the time of the alleged offending and at the time of trial, she was a really close friend of SF. She said they spent time together nearly every day and communicated by phone.103 123 KD also knew the accused, as she had worked briefly for him, packing tomatoes. She only worked between three to five shifts, at which time SF (and other workers) were also present. SF would let her know if the accused needed her to work, by messaging her on the day of the shift. She was paid in cash. The accused never asked her about her age while she was working for him.104 124 KD gave evidence that she was asleep at her home, when SF rang her between midnight and 1:00am on 26 June 2024. The call woke her up. She said that SF told her that the accused had hurt her and that he put his hand down the front of her pants. SF did not otherwise go into much detail, although she did say that when she told the accused to stop, the accused had sort of laughed at her.105 125 KD described SF as crying and ‘heaps upset’ during the phone call.106 She had told SF to tell her mum what had happened, otherwise she would ring and tell her. SF had told her she was going to wake her mum and tell her.107 126 In cross-examination, KD agreed that she had been sleepy at the start of the call but became very alert when SF told her what had happened. She estimated the call lasted for around five to eight minutes, certainly no more than 10 minutes.108 127 KD also gave evidence in cross-examination that her former partner had crashed his car into the Virginia traffic lights about a year, maybe more, prior to 103 T 79.18-31. 104 T 79.32-81.5. 105 T 81.6-82.1. 106 T 82.3-7. 107 T 82.11-16. 108 T 87.11-25. -- 23 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 22 the day of the alleged offending. KD and SF had been in another car, travelling behind him, so they were not involved, as such, in this accident. An ambulance had attended at the scene. This was something her and SF had talked about around the time it had happened, but not anymore.109 KG’s evidence 128 KG is SF’s mother.110 KG gave evidence that she knew the accused, as she had helped him to try to find more staff to work packing vegetables for him. She said she had spoken to the accused multiple times on the phone, or via text message.111 129 KG gave evidence that she had been asleep, in her bedroom, at her home in Horseshoe Cresent, when she heard SF walking on the wooden floorboards just after midnight, in the early hours of 26 June 2024. She could hear SF crying in the bathroom.112 130 KG gave evidence that she tried to open the bathroom door but it was locked. SF was saying that she needed to talk to her. When SF opened the bathroom door, she saw SF with her pants down to her knees and crying. When KG asked her what was wrong, SF had told her that the accused had hurt her and had put his hands in her vagina. She said that SF was looking at her private areas to see if there were any marks or anything.113 131 KG also gave evidence that SF had told her that the accused had touched her on the boobs, that she was scared and did not know what to do. She had explained to her that the accused had offered her a lift home from work and that he had pulled over to the side of the road on Horseshoe Crescent to have a cigarette. She had also told her that the accused had offered to give her extra money if he could sleep with her.114 132 KG described SF as shaking and ‘distraught, in a mess, crying’. She tried to console her, hugged her and told her not to have a shower.115 133 KG said that she was angry. She rang the accused and said to him ‘How dare you ever touch my daughter in that way. You’ve hurt her and I’m going to call the police’. He had said ‘No, no, no, no, no’ and that was it. She had then rung the police.116 134 In cross-examination, KG confirmed that she was still at work, when SF had left, from their home, to go to work on the night of the alleged offending. She 109 T 83.15-84.35. 110 T 89.17-18. 111 T 89.32-90.8; T 92.33-35. 112 T 90.11-28. 113 T 90.29-91.1. 114 T 91.4-21. 115 T 91.6-7; T 91.22-33. 116 T 92.4-17. -- 24 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 23 agreed with a proposition put to her that TT had driven SF to work that night. She gave evidence that she went to bed around 10:30pm that night but TT had stayed up because it had been planned that he would pick SF up from work.117 135 She gave evidence that TT had fallen asleep on the lounge, waiting for SF to call to pick her up, and that TT had woken up when SF arrived home.118 136 KG agreed that there had been (at least) a previous occasion when the accused had brought both SF and her sister, D, home from work and he had also taken some of her family members to work.119 When asked if it had occurred to her to tell SF to ask the accused to give her a lift home, and if that was not possible, that they would pick her up, she said no, and that TT was waiting for her to call to ask to be picked up.120 TT’s evidence 137 TT is SF’s brother-in-law.121 He gave evidence that at the time of the offending, he lived with his partner, D and her mother, KG at the house at Horseshoe Crescent. He said SF was not living there at the time and was living with her friend, KD, because of some arguments she had been having with her mother.122 138 TT gave evidence that he had met the accused through his employment at Tyre Power. The accused was a customer of that business. He had learned from speaking with the accused that he was a fruit and vegetable farmer. He had asked the accused if he could come to work for him for some extra case and the accused agreed.123 139 TT gave evidence that he first worked for the accused, packing tomatoes, about two to three months prior to the alleged offending. The accused asked him if he could find some more workers because they were ‘pretty flat out’.124 He said the next day, he worked a second shift for the accused. He took with him his brother-in-law, his brother-in-law’s partner, D and SF. He said they all introduced themselves to the accused and gave him their names and ages.125 He had not seen the accused write anything down at the time.126 140 TT gave evidence that the accused paid him in cash at a rate of about $20/hour, or something like that. He had only worked three shifts for the accused, 117 T 93.12-34. 118 This was hearsay evidence. At T 96.12-13, KG confirmed she had not observed or heard TT when SF first arrived home. 119 T 94.28-38; T 95.18-28. 120 T 95.1-6. 121 T 97.34-37. 122 T 103.4-26; T 106.26-29. 123 T 98.23-99.6. 124 T 99.17-35. 125 T 100.6-16. 126 T 102.9-14. -- 25 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 24 which he thought may have been three nights in a row.127 When asked in cross- examination to confirm when he had first worked for the accused, prior to the alleged offending, he said, ‘it was at least a month or so, or two months, from what I recall.’128 141 TT gave evidence that there were occasions when he had taken SF to work at the accused’s packing shed (including the night of the alleged offending). He had never picked her up from work.129 142 TT gave evidence that on the night of the offending, he was at home, watching television, waiting to hear from SF to go and pick her up from work. He fell asleep on the couch and then ended up going to bed.130 In cross- examination, TT gave evidence that he was going to pick SF up from work and then take her to KD’s, but he fell asleep. He agreed with a proposition put to him that SF had told him that ‘she got [the accused] to drive her home’.131 143 TT confirmed that he had been asleep in his bed, not on the couch, and that he was woken by KG, after SF had arrived home from work on the night of the offending.132 144 TT was unaware that the accused had previously driven members of the family home after work.133 He gave the following evidence:134 Q. Did it occur to you 'Well, look, you know, I've had a long day, I'll see - suggest to Sofie that she ask Sok to drop her home and I'll pick her up if you can't'. A. No, there was no suggestion on that. I told Sofie 'Just give me a ring and I'll come pick you up', but it never happened and I had fallen asleep on the couch. Officer Leverington 145 Officer Leverington was the investigating officer with respect to the alleged offending. He gave evidence relating to the circumstances of the accused’s arrest and the investigation generally. 146 Officer Leverington gave evidence that he attended in company with DBS Dawson at the accused’s home address in Salisbury on 26 June 2024 at 5:14 am. That attendance was recorded and tendered as Exhibit P5.135 127 T 102.15-103.3. 128 T 102.26-27. 129 T 100.38-101.4. 130 T 101.8-15. 131 T 103.36-104.3. 132 T 104.16-28. 133 T 104.33-105.5. 134 T 106.14-19. 135 A transcript of what can be heard on the recording was provided to the Court as an aide and marked ‘MFIP6’. I have referred to that aide, rather than the recording itself, when identifying relevant matters. -- 26 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 25 147 Both the accused and his wife were present at the time of police attendance. After ascertaining if the accused could understand English, police informed the accused that they had received an allegation from SF that she had been raped by the accused.136 The accused responded calmly and without emotion, consistent with him being forewarned of their likely attendance, given the earlier phone call from KG. 148 The accused was provided with his arrest rights. When it was suggested that arrangements would be made by police to assist him to get legal advice prior to participating in a formal interview, the accused explained that it was one person’s word against another.137 149 The police told the accused they were looking for a purple beanie that SF had left in his car. The accused told the police that he had dropped SF off that night, after work and identified the beanie for them, in his car. He said that he was going to give it to her. 150 The police took a photograph of the beanie.138 They returned to the accused’s house later that morning and took photographs of the Holden Rodeo Utility XBI- 776.139 It was an agreed fact that the accused was the owner of that vehicle at the time of the alleged offending.140 151 Officer Leverington obtained CCTV footage from the OTR at Virginia, taken at about 11:26pm on 25 June 2024, which was tendered and played to the Court.141 152 It was an agreed fact that the CCTV footage showed the accused’s vehicle parked at the OTR and the accused at the counter, inside.142 The accused can be seen on the footage purchasing a packet of cigarettes and a four pack of Red Bull, which he paid for by card. Another person can be seen in the front passenger seat of the accused’s vehicle, although it is impossible to identify who that person is, simply from viewing the footage. That person is not seen to exit the vehicle at any time. After making his purchases, the accused can be seen returning to the vehicle and driving off. Expert evidence – Dr Teh 153 Dr Teh is a general practitioner who has been employed as a medical consultant at Yarrow Place since October 2023. She is currently undertaking a Master’s Degree in Forensic Medicine through Monash University.143 136 MFIP6 at line 38. 137 Ibid at lines 55 and 61. 138 Exhibit P7. 139 Exhibit P8. 140 T 113.5-6. 141 T 111.13-20; Exhibit P9. 142 T 113.17-24. 143 T 115.21-116.4. -- 27 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 26 154 Dr Teh gave evidence that she examined SF at Yarrow Place at about 9:20am on 26 June 2024. She made notes of that examination and referred to those notes during her evidence.144 155 During the consultation, Dr Teh conducted an anogenital examination of SF. This involved performing an external genital examination and the collection of swabs from the vagina. SF declined an internal examination.145 156 During the external examination, Dr Teh observed a 2 x 3 mm superficial abrasion on SF’s right labia minora on the posterior aspect and a 3 x 3 mm superficial abrasion on the posterior fourchette.146 She noted those injuries on a diagram.147 Such injuries were likely caused by a combination of pressure and movement across the skin or mucosa, either from a finger, or a penis, or an object moving forcefully across the surface of those areas, during penetration of the vagina.148 157 Two vaginal swabs were collected from SF. The first swab was tested for sexually transmitted disease and came back negative. The second swab was tested for general bacterial and fungal testing. It produced positive for candida albicans and bacterial vaginosis.149 158 Dr Teh explained that candida albicans was a yeast which can be present in the vagina without causing any symptoms, but when it overgrows, it can cause infection, which typically presented as a vaginal discharge, a burning sensation and some redness and swelling. She did not observe any objective signs of such swelling or redness on SF, nor any discharge.150 159 Dr Teh also explained that bacterial vaginosis is an imbalance between the good and bad bacteria in the vagina, which can present as a malodour or discharge but may also present with no symptoms.151 160 Dr Teh gave evidence that it was not possible to tell if those infections were present at the time of the alleged offending. However, studies had shown that if an infection was present, there was an increased risk in a person sustaining an injury from vaginal trauma.152 144 T 117.18-23. 145 T 117.24-31. 146 T 117.34-38. 147 Exhibit P10. 148 T 118.28-119.2. 149 T 119.3-13. 150 T 119.15-120.2. 151 T 120.3-17. 152 T 120.18-36. -- 28 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 27 161 During the examination, Dr Teh asked SF if she had had sexual intercourse prior to the assault. She had recorded a note that SF told her that she had vaginal sex with her partner at 3:00pm on 25 June 2024.153 Accused’s evidence 162 The accused gave evidence that he was 48 years of age and was born in Vietnam, albeit his background was Cambodian. He was assisted by an interpreter during his evidence. 163 The accused gave evidence that he is married, with three children, two sons and a daughter. He has no criminal convictions and has not previously been in trouble with the police or the authorities.154 164 He came to Australia in 1988, having previously spent approximately seven years living as a refugee in Thailand. He was aged about 12 at that time.155 He started working when he was still at high school, undertaking part-time farming work.156 He continued to work hard, including with his parents, who grew Lebanese cucumbers on land at Waterloo Corner.157 165 In 2010, the accused bought his own land at Two Wells and thereafter bought another property opposite that on Ellis Road.158 He initially grew Lebanese cucumbers but now grows eggplants. These are all transported interstate.159 166 In addition to farming his own vegetables, the accused gave evidence that he sourced tomatoes and other vegetables from other growers in Virginia to sell interstate, with the assistance of interstate agents. When there was a demand for such vegetables, he would then contact the growers to ascertain if they had the produce and when that produce would available. It would then be necessary for that produce to be packed and delivered the next day, interstate.160 This determined when (or if) the accused would require casual workers to assist to pack that produce. 167 It was this packing work that the complainant, SF and other members of her family, were undertaking at the shed (workshop) at Carmelo Road, Buckland Park.161 168 The accused gave evidence that on the night of the alleged offending, SF worked at the workshop, packing tomatoes for him. He gave quite detailed 153 T 121.2-14. 154 T 128.29-129.5. 155 T 124.29-125.29. 156 T 126.10-29. 157 T 127.6-25. 158 T 127.26-37. 159 T 128.2-25. 160 T 129.6-130.29. 161 T 130.30-131.26. -- 29 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 28 evidence, assisted by copies of various text messages exchanged between him and SF, as to how she came to work for him on that night and on other occasions. 169 A bundle of those text messages was admitted de bene esse. I am satisfied that some of those text messages are relevant to provide background and I have only relied on those which are relevant.162 170 The accused gave evidence that he first told SF that she would be able to work the night of the offending, on the day prior in circumstances where she had been texting him requesting to work.163 171 He explained that he was waiting to hear from a tomato grower to confirm whether they had stock for him to pick up, prior to confirming with SF if she would be required to work and at what time.164 Although he had told her on 24 June that she would be required to work the next day, it was only on the day of the alleged offending that he provided her with her starting time for work that day.165 172 By reference to those text messages, the accused gave evidence that it was arranged for SF to commence work at 6:30pm on the night of the offending. She was working with several other packers. She finished at approximately 11:00pm.166 173 The accused gave evidence that he noticed that during her shift, SF ‘wasn’t normal on that day’.167 He described her as ‘agitating herself’ and not fully focused on packing the tomatoes.168 He said she he kept running in and out and was always on her phone.169 174 The accused was cross-examined about his observations of SF as a worker, both in general and in terms of her performance on the night of the alleged offending. He explained that he had allowed SF to work for him as she was competent at her job, she was always polite and would follow the instructions that he gave her. He described himself as a good boss and agreed that SF appeared to like working for him.170 175 He maintained that SF did not appear to be herself on the night of the alleged offending. He said, ‘she appeared to be agitated and not herself, not stay on the lines, just keep walking out of the lines back and forth’.171 However, he did not get angry with her for that.172 162 Exhibit D11. 163 T 132.24-30. 164 T 132.38-133.10. 165 T 133.11-19. 166 T 138.4-17. 167 T 138.20. 168 T 138.22-25. 169 T 138.27-34. 170 T 153.12-28. 171 T 154.9-11. 172 T 154.12-13. -- 30 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 29 176 When SF finished work, she asked him for a lift home. The accused explained that on one prior occasion he had collected SF and her sister from the house and driven them to work and that he had also taken SF and her sister home from work on one occasion.173 He explained that he would also give other workers lifts home from work because it was hard to get labour and often people did not have transport.174 177 The accused gave evidence that on the night of the alleged offending, he was using his Holden Rodeo utility which he had owned for approximately 10 years. He explained that he had another vehicle, a Volkswagen that his wife was using that day.175 He then gave detailed evidence as to mechanical problems he said he was experiencing with the Holden Rodeo utility. As to what those problems were, he gave the following evidence:176 A. It's the key ignition. Every time if you go over the lump, or the hump, it will stop, like not register, like completely shut down. Q. The motor. A. Yes, the motor, the machine, the engine itself, yes. Q. Would it happen each and every time or just sometimes. A. Any hump or any gravel road. 178 He explained that he took the car to his mechanic and got two new keys but that he still had the same problem, albeit the problem was less than before. He explained that he still needed to jiggle the key a little bit to start the car.177 179 When asked why he continued to use that car if he was still having occasional problems with the ignition, he said:178 It’s only for farm use, especially is not outside, fertiliser and chemical for my worker. 180 He explained it was very unusual for him to use the Holden Rodeo outside of the farm and said that he had only driven it on the night of the alleged offending.179 181 There was no dispute that this was the car he used to drive SF home from work that night. The car had a three-seater bench seat. SF was sitting on the far side and he was sitting in the driver’s seat.180 173 T 139.17-32. 174 T 139.33-140.8. 175 T 140.9-141.6. 176 T 141.14-20. 177 T 141.21-34. 178 T 141.37-38. 179 T 142.1-3. 180 T 142.4-143.4. -- 31 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 30 182 The accused gave evidence that prior to leaving work that night, SF asked him for a cigarette. He pulled out his packet of cigarettes and gave her what was the last cigarette in that packet. The accused lit the cigarette, had a drag of it and then gave it to SF. He gave evidence that she then smoked it as he started driving.181 183 He asked her if he could go to the OTR to get some more cigarettes.182 184 The accused gave evidence that after leaving Carmelo Road, he turned right onto Port Wakefield Road and after about half a kilometre, turned left onto a small road to head towards the Virginia OTR.183 When they arrived at the OTR, he went straight inside and SF remained alone in the car. He bought himself a packet of cigarettes and four packs of Red Bull ‘to wake me up as well when I drive home’.184 He said that when he returned to the car, he offered SF a can of Red Bull which she accepted.185 185 The accused denied having touched SF at all during the journey from the workshop to the OTR. When asked if he had stroked her hair or kissed her on the cheek or anything like that, he said, ‘I don’t believe I did.’186 186 The accused said that when they left the OTR, he drove to the Bendigo Bank to withdraw some money from the ATM. He withdrew the maximum allowed, being $1,000. SF stayed in the car when he got out to go to the ATM.187 187 He did not pay SF for her work that night immediately from the money he had withdrawn. He said, ‘I don’t flash my money around’. Instead, he had waited until he got to her house and then paid her.188 188 The accused was then asked to explain where he had next driven. He said that he drove down the primary school road and then a gravel road, being a back road off Port Wakefield. He said, ‘it’s not a fast lane, it’s a slow zone’.189 When asked if there was any particular reason why he was not driving fast, he said:190 Due to the key for the car, that was only the cause of driving slow. 189 The accused gave evidence that eventually he returned to a main road where there were traffic lights at Angle Vale (the Virginia lights). He had to stop because there was a red light.191 181 T 143.28-37. 182 T 143.5-27. 183 T 144.2-21. 184 T 144.23-26. 185 T 145.6-8. 186 T 145.9-15. 187 T 145.16-37. 188 T 146.3-12. 189 T 146.19-20. 190 T 146.23-24. 191 T 146.25-31. -- 32 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 31 190 He was asked whether at or about that time or at any time had he touched SF on the thigh. He said, ‘I never touch her at all.’192 191 The accused gave evidence that when they were stopped at the traffic lights, SF told him that there was a tilt in the light because her friend had hit that light. She said the ambulance had come and taken people out.193 192 It was suggested to the accused that he had driven SF home via the OTR, the bank and various side streets in order to spend more time with her. He denied this. He gave the following evidence:194 Q. It wasn't the shortest way for you to go home, was it. A. Like I said from beginning she asked me for my last cigarette, if I did not give her that last cigarette I would not go to OTR. Q. It didn't make your trip home to 8 Malcolm Street, Salisbury any shorter, did it, driving [SF] home. A. I am used to this kind of thing every day. Q. It didn't make your trip home any shorter by going to On the Run before dropping [SF] home first, did it. A. It's a favour. 193 When it was suggested to the accused that it made no sense for him to drive on a dirt road that night if the car had ignition issues, he said ‘that is only the way that actually goes through that road’.195 When it was suggested to him that, from the bank, he could have simply driven up Old Port Wakefield Road and then turn left onto Angle Vale Road to avoid a dirt road, he said:196 During that time I also need to grab some money out as well. That is the shortcut that fast. 194 The accused gave evidence that from the Virginia lights, he had then turned right onto Port Wakefield Road to get to Horseshoe Crescent. When it was suggested to the accused that he had been driving slowly on the Port Wakefield Highway, he said that this was ‘due to the issue with the car’.197 195 As he turned into Horseshoe Crescent, SF had asked him to stop, to have a smoke.198 He was happy to stop the car so he could also have a cigarette. He pulled out his new packet of cigarettes, took two cigarettes out, lit one up and gave her 192 T 146.34. 193 T 146.37-147.5. 194 T 155.35-156.6. 195 T 158.27-28. 196 T 158.37-38. 197 T 156.16. 198 T 147.6-18. -- 33 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 32 one. Rather than smoke that cigarette, SF had taken only a few drags and then gave it back to him. He then smoked both cigarettes.199 196 The accused was asked if, while they were sitting, stopped in the car, SF had said anything to him. He said:200 A. I can't remember but what she ask me, she was telling me a story about herself, that she caught her boyfriend having sex with her best friend. Q. Did she say when that was, that she caught the boyfriend having sex. A. That day. Q. And did you say anything about that. A. She reply 'sorry'. Q. How did she seem, how did she appear when she told you that. A. She was look upset, angry. Q. And then can you remember what else she said, if you can't don't guess. A. She just said 'All men are the same', I don't know what her definition is. 197 The accused gave evidence that after that he finished his cigarette he ‘[j]ust took her home, that’s it’.201 He explained that he had to ask SF where her driveway was because his car was old and the light was not very bright. He drove into and down the driveway and stopped at the gate of the house. He then gave her two $50 notes to pay her for the work she had undertaken that night. As to whether this was what she was owed, he said:202 A. It was supposed to be a little bit less. Q. Why did you give her $100. A. Due to my employee, everyone, I never give them change, spare change, what I give is whatever I got on there, I just give them all, just for my sake. Next time, if I need a worker, especially casual, it is easy to call them up and then get them to work. Q. So then, at that stage, did you give her - had you calculated exactly how much you owed her. A. It's supposed to be 76 or 77 dollar for that night work. Q. Did you have the precise amount of money in your wallet. A. No, I don't. 199 T 147.16-148.12. 200 T 148.15-29. 201 T 148.30-34. 202 T 149.15-28. -- 34 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 33 Q. And so is that why you gave her two $50 notes. A. That's correct. 198 He also gave her a bag of tomatoes and a can of Red Bull.203 199 In cross-examination, the accused was asked how he determined what to pay SF for her shifts. He said, ‘on each worker based on how they perform’. He explained that usually for a casual worker, if they performed well, they would get $19/hr but if they were a little bit poor, or a starter, they were paid $17/hr.204 200 When asked in cross-examination if he could see SF was upset when he dropped her home, he said that she was upset because of what she had told him about her boyfriend. When it was suggested to the accused that he had made her cry, he said ‘I never see her cry, no’.205 He denied that SF had left her beanie in the car was because she had left the car in a hurry.206 201 The accused gave evidence that thereafter, he drove from SF’s house back to his house in Salisbury. The route he had taken was via the Port Wakefield Highway and Waterloo Corner Road, being consistent with the route designated by a dark blue line on a Google map, tendered as Exhibit P12.207 202 While on his way home, the accused received a telephone call from SF’s mother. She was abusive. She had said, ‘Don’t you ever fucking touch my daughter’.208 He replied by simply saying, ‘No no no’. He could not finish his reply as she had just hung up. He said he did not have a clue what she was talking about.209 203 Thereafter, he also received a phone call from TT. When asked what he had said to TT, the accused said:210 I just hung up because due to what his mother was very aggressive and very bad influence, so it is better to leave it and let the police handle. 204 The police had attended at his house that morning.211 He denied he was prepared as to what to say to them because he had received the earlier call from KG.212 203 T 149.31-32. 204 T 151.1-8. 205 T 157.33. 206 T 158.3-8. 207 T 151.35-153.7. 208 T 149.36-150.7. 209 T 150.8-13. 210 T 150.17-19. 211 T 150.22-23. 212 T 158.19-22. -- 35 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 34 205 The accused denied ever having touched SF in any way while in the car on Horseshoe Crescent. He said:213 I did not touch her at all. We all sit on our own seat. 206 When asked if he had ever indecently touched SF or at all that night, he said, ‘I believe not.’214 The accused maintained that denial in cross-examination and denied offering SF money in exchange for intercourse.215 207 The accused acknowledged that SF was young but said he did not know her age. He denied knowing that there was a big age gap between SF and himself, or that she was a teenager. He said, ‘My focus pack the tomato, get it out of the way’.216 When asked whether he thought SF was an adult, he said:217 A. Like I said, I'm not interested. Q. I mean, did you become friendly with her. A. I am friendly toward all my staff. Q. Did you try to establish a close personal connection with [SF]. A. No. Q. Were you interested in what she did in her personal life. A. No. Q. Were you interested in her relationship with her boyfriend. A. No. Q. Did you ever think she wanted to have sex with you. A. No. Q. She didn't talk to you about her boyfriend, did she. A. It's only where Horseshoe Crescent she told me about that, that's it. Q. Do you say you were helping her with her boyfriend, at that time. A. No, it's not my business to actually nosey, to know someone else. Q. Did it seem odd to you she was confiding about her boyfriend at that time. A. Like I said, I'm not interested what is she saying. 213 T 149.35. 214 T 150.26. 215 T 156.26-157.28. 216 T 154.29-30. 217 T 154.32-155.17. -- 36 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 35 Tan Su Ly’s evidence 208 Mr Tan Su Ly gave very brief evidence with the assistance of an interpreter. 209 Mr Ly confirmed that he worked for the accused at a business called Ellis Fresh, overseeing fertiliser and watering. He gave evidence that he drove the accused’s Holden Rodeo Utility during his work for the accused, and prior to that vehicle being seized by the police at the time of the accused’s arrest.218 210 Mr Ly gave evidence that for about a year or a year and a half prior to the accused’s arrest, that vehicle had a problem with it. He described this as being a problem with the key.219 He said:220 Sometime the engine just shut down so I had to take the key out, put the key back on moving around before I can start, the car can start again. 211 He told the accused about the problem and the key was changed. After this, the problem got a little better and the engine did not shut down as often as before.221 212 Mr Ly explained that due to this problem, he drove the vehicle slowly. When asked why, he said:222 Because when it’s bumpy the engine stop, so I don’t want it to stop so I had to drive to make sure it’s not too bumpy. 213 He said the vehicle still had the same problem at the time of the accused’s arrest.223 214 Mr Ly acknowledged he had come to court to help the accused but maintained he was telling the truth about there being an ignition problem with the accused’s Holden Rodeo Utility.224 Closing addresses Prosecution 215 The prosecutor identified that it was the defence case that SF had lied about the alleged offending. The Court was urged to carefully consider SF’s evidence and to ask itself, was SF an honest and credible witness, or had she made up the allegations to get her innocent boss into trouble? 216 It was suggested that when SF’s evidence was carefully analysed, it was demonstrated to be truthful and accurate as to many ancillary topics, consistent with all of her evidence, including the account of the alleged offending, being both 218 T 161.30-163.9. 219 T 163.14-22. 220 T 163.24-26. 221 T 163.29-35. 222 T 164.4-6. 223 T 164.7-10. 224 T 164.23-31. -- 37 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 36 honest and reliable. For example, the evidence given by SF as to what work she performed for the accused, the fact the work was organised at short notice and how she was paid in cash, was consistent with the other evidence given on this topic. Further, SF’s evidence that it had been planned for TT to collect her after work that night was corroborated by both TT and KG. 217 SF had given very detailed evidence about the route the accused had taken when he drove her home on the night of the offending, all of which had been demonstrated to be truthful. They had driven home via the OTR and the Bendigo Bank and via back streets. It was submitted that as SF had been honest and reliable when giving that evidence, it supported a finding that she was also being honest and reliable in her evidence as to the sexual abuse. 218 As to the route that the accused had driven, it was submitted that it simply did not make geographic sense for the accused to stop at the OTR before dropping SF home. It would have been quicker for him to first drop SF home and then go to the OTR. Instead, he had driven towards the OTR at Virginia, being in the wrong direction from SF’s house, when he needed to travel straight past there on his way home in any event. It was submitted that the accused had taken this route to manufacture a way to spend more time with SF and had bought cigarettes and Red Bull to offer to SF to ‘help him try his luck with her’.225 SF had acknowledged she would vape at work. As such, the accused must have known this and could have thought that cigarettes would also be of interest to her. 219 The prosecutor submitted that the accused had concocted his evidence that SF was agitated at work that night and had confided in him about having discovered her boyfriend having sex with another girl, to meet the Crown case. If, as the accused claimed, SF was agitated and performed poorly during her shift, it did not make sense for him to detour via the OTR rather that drive her directly home. It made no sense for SF to confide in the accused about such a personal detail pertaining to her boyfriend, particularly in circumstances where the accused denied having taken any interest in her personal life. 220 Further, insofar as there was any suggestion that the reason SF was upset in the car related to some earlier accident at the Virginia traffic lights was unlikely as SF herself was not involved in that accident. 221 The prosecutor sought to also address what he anticipated may be some criticisms directed towards SF, arising from her decision to stay in the car at the OTR and not message anyone for either assistance or to collect her, in circumstances where she claimed she had already been the victim of unwanted sexual touching. 222 The prosecutor submitted that the Court should approach this issue by considering the evidence SF had given, namely: 225 T 168.16-17. -- 38 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 37 What’s a 16 year old girl meant to do when a 47 year old man is touching her? 223 It was submitted that the Court may consider that SF simply did not know what to do in this difficult situation where she had been placed in an awkward position by her boss who had generously offered to give her a lift home late at night after work. It was submitted that although what SF had described involved sexual contact, it was not contact which had ‘quite crossed the line’ to the extent that she would think it appropriate to flee from him in the circumstances. Rather, the Court may think that by far the most convenient option for everyone was for SF to simply remain in the car and for the accused to take her home, being only a very short distance away. 224 It was submitted that the evidence SF gave about having frozen during the offending was consistent with her earlier evidence that she simply did not know what to do in this situation. Where the accused had stopped on Horseshoe Crescent was still a long way from her home. She had already told the accused to stop touching her, she needed to get home and she still needed to be paid for her shift. It was submitted that in those circumstances, the response as described by the complainant, made perfect sense. 225 Further, the Court was reminded of what had occurred immediately after SF came home. She had immediately contacted her best friend and told her about the offending and had then told her mother about the offending. She was distressed, being evidence demonstrating the consistency of her conduct and therefore, relevant in terms of the Court’s assessment of her credibility as a witness. 226 It was submitted that the way SF behaved immediately after the offending was consistent with her account of the offending, rather than her having just invented this story, being contrary to the way in which she presented, both as a person and as a witness. 227 The Court was also reminded of aspects of the accused’s evidence which it was submitted, were less than convincing. In particular, it was submitted that the accused must have known that SF was still a teenager and at school and that it may draw the inference that the accused had subsequently taken advantage of SF’s vulnerability and immaturity. 228 As to SF’s reliability, although there were minor inconsistencies in her account as to how her shift on the night of the offending was organised, compared to that in the text messages, the Court may conclude that this was not something that was peripheral to the offending and a very unimportant detail. The simple fact that she may not now recall exactly how she organised that particular shift did not mean that she was lying about the subject offending. 229 It was submitted that as to the relevant key aspects of the case, SF had been an accurate witness and insofar as she may not have been perfect on every detail, this was not unusual given her age and the circumstances. It was submitted that the -- 39 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 38 Court should conclude that SF had been both a truthful and accurate witness insofar as she described what the accused had done to her when the vehicle was stopped on Horseshoe Crescent and that it should find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the charges in counts 1 and 2 had been proved (noting that count 3 had been charged in the alternative to count 2). Defence 230 Counsel for the accused submitted that the Court should find that SF was a witness who was prepared to lie and that she had lied on numerous occasions during her evidence but most importantly, as to her evidence of the alleged offending. As such, the Court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the reliability and credibility of her evidence. 231 It was submitted that the very first lie SF told was that it was the accused who had offered her a lift home from work. Rather than call upon TT so late at night, would it have not made much more sense for SF to simply ask the accused to give her a lift home, being something that he had done willingly before for her and his other workers. 232 The second aspect of SF’s evidence which was said to demonstrate her capacity to lie related to the topic of cigarettes. It was submitted that there was ‘incontrovertible’ evidence to the effect that SF must have known that the accused smoked. She had acknowledged that she smoked cigarettes but did not buy her own cigarettes. As SF had said she did not smoke at work, how would the accused have known she was a smoker, unless she had first raised the subject?226 233 It was submitted that the accused’s evidence, namely that SF had asked him for a cigarette, made far more sense – and was consistent with her simply wanting a cigarette after working that night. 234 It was submitted that as SF had asked the accused for the last cigarette in his packet, the accused had gone to the OTR to get a replacement pack, which ‘all sits together very sensibly’.227 235 Counsel for the accused submitted that insofar as there was any suggestion that the accused had driven SF home, via the OTR and the bank, in order to spend more time with her and to therefore commit the offending, made no sense when he could have simply taken her directly to a comparatively secluded place and made an advance upon her there. 236 It was submitted that the Court should accept the accused’s evidence that during the trip from the workshop to the OTR, SF was smoking the cigarette that he had given her prior to leaving work. This flew in the face of what SF alleged 226 T 177.5-7. 227 T 177.18-19. -- 40 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 39 happened during that short trip, namely that he was touching her hair and kissing her cheek and neck. 237 Further, it was submitted that it was a physical impossibility for the accused to kiss SF while he was driving, given their respective positions in the car. Similarly, it would have been impossible for him to continue to drive while fondling her hair. The accused was a small man - it was simply absurd to think that he would even contemplate leaning over the distance between himself and SF to kiss her on the cheek and neck as he was driving and that any such suggestion was ‘absolutely ludicrous’.228 238 Insofar as it was submitted that the accused had been driving slowly in order to spend more time with SF, this also made no sense. If he had been intent on spending time with SF, why not ask her to join him at the OTR to get some coffee or some food inside the restaurant. There was a reason why the accused was driving slowly and that was because of the trouble he had had with the car’s ignition. He submitted:229 If you drive over bumpy areas then it’s more likely to somehow put the ignition out. He said he tried to fix up, or there’s some suggestion there was an attempt, and he got replacement keys, and that seemed to alleviate the problem somewhat. But, you don’t tempt fate by driving over bumpy ground unduly slowly. 239 It was submitted that the accused had also worked a long shift at work and needed the Red Bull to keep him awake. The Court might think that he was simply driving slowly in order to make his way home leisurely, rather than for some sinister motive. 240 Counsel for the accused submitted that there were several other aspects of SF’s account which were implausible. The first related to the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the accused had ever shown any prior sexual interest in SF at any time until the time of the alleged offending. 241 If the accused had already started to touch SF inappropriately prior to stopping at the OTR, why did SF simply sit in the car, rather than get out, go into the service station and either ask for assistance or use that as an opportunity to call her family to come and collect her, given they were only a few minutes away? It was submitted that this was a pretty simple solution for her. 242 It was submitted that SF was not a ‘witless’ person, nor was she a ‘shrinking violet’ who would simply agree with anything that came along. Why had she not simply sent a message to a friend, alerting them to what had happened and asking for their help? There were many options open to her, none of which she had taken, being inconsistent with her claim that the accused had acted in a sexually 228 T 179.16-17. 229 T 180.19-25. -- 41 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 40 threatening way to her, even on the way to the OTR. The reason why she did nothing was because the accused had done nothing.230 243 The Court was referred to the evidence given by SF about the accident that had occurred at the Virginia traffic lights. It was submitted that there could be no doubt that there had been such an accident, having regard to KD’s evidence. The accused knew about this accident. The only way he could have known about this was if SF had specifically told him, something that she had denied doing. As such, the Court should find that while they were stopped at the Virginia traffic lights, what in fact occurred was that SF had told the accused about the fact of that earlier accident. 244 Perhaps most importantly, the Court was directed to the evidence given by SF, for the first time, during her examination-in-chief, that after making their way through the Virginia lights, the accused had started touching her on the breast while the vehicle was still in motion. It was submitted that this was something that SF simply should have remembered and told Officer Wills about, if that had in fact occurred. This was a significant omission. It was submitted that this touching had never happened and constituted an embellishment on SF’s part. 245 Further, counsel for the accused emphasised that SF acknowledged that she had her mobile phone with her. Why had it not occurred to her to ring someone and ask for help because this man was assaulting her. It was submitted that rather than worry about her future employment, SF would have worried about her safety. 246 Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused must have stopped where he did on Horseshoe Crescent because SF had told him that she wanted a cigarette. They were nearly at her house by this stage. If he had some sinister intent, why not go to some other place instead of a place ‘just up the road from where she lived’. Rather, the Court was urged to accept the accused’s evidence and find that SF was upset for other reasons that night. The accused had stopped the vehicle and given her a cigarette because she had asked him to do so. If, as SF had claimed, the accused had already sexually assaulted her. Why would he then sit in the car and delay further sexual contact with her, by smoking cigarettes? Why would he then assault SF, in that location, when there was a risk of them being observed by someone simply passing by? 247 The Court was urged to find that in fact the accused was simply a decent bloke and a good employer, wanting to provide a shoulder for SF to cry on. This was why he had acceded to her request to stop the vehicle and to give her a cigarette at that time.231 230 T 183.1-3. 231 Noting that in fact the accused gave evidence wherein he denied that SF was crying. He described her as upset when telling him about her boyfriend, that is, on the accused’s version, after they had already stopped the car; T 157.29-33. -- 42 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 41 248 Further, it was submitted that it simply made no sense for the accused to have given SF a bag of tomatoes, a can of Red Bull and her wages after having assaulted her. If she was crying as she alleged, why would he not do everything he could to try to calm her down and make the peace before he dropped her home and not leave it to chance. 249 Finally, it was submitted that the injuries observed by Dr Teh had an innocent explanation. They had been caused either by the earlier intercourse she had undertaken with her partner or alternatively could be explained by way of the infections noticed upon testing of the various vaginal swabs. 250 It was submitted that in all the circumstances, the Court should accept the accused’s denial of the alleged offending as being at least a reasonable possibility and find the accused not guilty of all counts. Analysis of accused’s evidence General observations 251 The accused gave evidence denying the alleged offending. For the Court to return a verdict of guilty to any count, it must be satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that the accused was telling the truth when he denied each of the alleged offences. 252 As previously stated, there was unchallenged evidence to establish that the accused was a man of good character. I have taken this evidence into account both when assessing the accused’s credibility and when considering whether there is any reasonable possibility that he may be innocent of a charge or charges. 253 The majority of the accused’s evidence was given by him in English, without assistance from the interpreter. On occasions, the accused required help to understand some of the terminology used by the prosecutor. I am satisfied that the accused understood the questions posed of him. 254 The accused’s evidence was relatively brief and essentially confined to several discrete topics. The accused gave quite detailed evidence to explain how SF came to work the relevant shift on the night of the offending. This evidence was relied upon to cast doubt on SF’s overall reliability and credibility insofar as there were some differences in SF’s recollection on this topic, compared to what was set forth in the text messages tendered as Exhibit D11. 255 However, the majority of the accused’s evidence related to explaining and/or meeting key aspects of the prosecution case. Those key topics included: • what he knew of SF’s age as at the time of the alleged offending; • how it came to be that the accused drove SF home from work that night; -- 43 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 42 • why he drove SF home via the OTR, the Bendigo Bank and back streets, rather than taking the shortest, direct route; • why he stopped on the side of Horseshoe Crescent and what occurred at that time; and • why SF was observed to be upset in the period immediately after the alleged offending. This topic included the accused’s claimed observations of SF at work that night and what he claimed SF told him, during the journey home, both about the accident at the Virginia lights and about catching her boyfriend cheating on her. 256 After carefully considering the accused’s evidence on these key topics, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was not telling the truth about these matters. Rather, I am satisfied that the accused’s evidence on these topics was false and designed to meet the allegations against him. 257 After carefully considering the accused’s evidence, together with all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the evidence given by the accused on key topics was credible and/or reliable. How SF’s shifts were arranged 258 The accused gave evidence to explain the type of work SF did at the workshop on Carmelo Road and why it was that he was only able to confirm at short notice, why and when he needed her, or other such workers, to work. 259 I accept that evidence, namely that the accused liaised with an agent to see if there was a market interstate to buy relevant produce at a certain rate, and also reliant on other vegetable growers to confirm the availability of such produce. Once the produce was available, it needed to be packed by him at short notice, so it could be delivered interstate. 260 This meant that the accused needed workers, such as SF, to be available to work, packing the produce, at short notice. This provides a possible explanation, consistent with the accused’s evidence, as to why he was happy to help his workers with transport from time to time and to give them some of the produce. That is, he needed to keep his casual staff onside, to keep this aspect of his business going. I have borne this in mind when assessing what were key components of the prosecution case. 261 The accused’s evidence about the specific circumstances in which SF came to be working the shift on 25 June 2024 was given while the accused was refreshing his memory by reference to text messages exchanged between him and SF during June 2024.232 It was only after this came to the Court’s attention, that the messages were tendered. When SF was questioned on this topic, she was never 232 Exhibit D11. -- 44 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 43 shown the messages. This provides a reasonable explanation as to why the accused’s evidence on this topic ‘matched’ what was in the messages, whereas there were some minor differences in SF’s recollection and the messages.233 262 I am satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that SF was eager to work for the accused, and specifically that she was eager to work the shift on 25 June 2024. I am also satisfied that she informed the accused two days earlier that she was happy to work late into the night. In other words, I am satisfied that the accused did not force SF to work that late shift on 25 June 2024, to deliberately orchestrate an opportunity for the alleged offending. SF’s age 263 The accused denied having any knowledge of SF’s age or the fact that she was still in high school. He denied knowing there was a big age gap between them or knowing that she was a teenager. 264 SF did not recall ever telling the accused her age or ever hearing anyone else tell him how old she was. Although TT had a recollection of SF (and his other family members) introducing themselves to the accused and telling him their ages, he may be mistaken about this. I cannot make a finding that this occurred. 265 However, in the SF interview, and when giving her evidence, SF’s physical presentation was very much consistent with her age. She presented as a petite, physically small female, in her late teens. The accused was 47 years old as at the date of the alleged offending. SF was 16. I am satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that at the time of the offending, the accused did not know either that there was a significant difference in his age and SF’s age, or that he did not know she was a teenager, simply having regard to her physical presentation. The way SF communicated, both verbally and in writing, was also indicative of her still being a teenager. 266 SF gave unchallenged evidence, supported by the unchallenged evidence of her mother, that the accused initially contacted SF’s mother, to make arrangements for SF to work. This was similarly consistent with the accused being aware that SF was a young person and much younger than he was. 267 Further, SF gave unchallenged evidence, which I accept, that on the night of the alleged offending, the accused asked her if she was still attending school and that she told him that she was still attending ‘FLO’. 268 I am satisfied and find that at the time of the alleged offending, the accused knew that SF was still at school, that there was a significant age gap between them and that SF was still a teenager. However, the evidence is insufficient for me to find that the accused knew that SF was under the age of 18 and I cannot make such a finding. It follows that I reject the accused’s evidence that he did not know that 233 See further discussion below. -- 45 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 44 SF was still in high school, that he did not know she was teenager and that he did not know there was a big age difference between the two of them. What happened during the shift on 25 June 2024? 269 The accused claimed that SF was not her usual self during the shift, that she was agitated and spent the night running in and out and on her phone. 270 SF denied this. There was no evidence from any of the other workers who worked that same shift as to what, if anything, they observed as to SF’s behaviour or work performance, during that shift. 271 The accused gave evidence that he would pay his workers as per their performance. Those who performed well were paid $19/hour and a poorer worker, or a starter, $17/hour. 272 The evidence established, and I find that SF worked from approximately 6:30pm to 11:00pm on 25 June 2024. This is a total of 4.5 hours. As such, she was owed either $85.50, if paid at a rate of $19/hour, or $76.50, if paid at a rate of $17/hour. 273 The accused gave evidence that he paid SF $100 for the shift, notwithstanding this was more than what he owed her. He said he gave her two $50 notes, as he did not otherwise have the correct change. 274 However, the accused went to the ATM at the Bendigo Bank to withdraw cash on the journey to SF’s house. As the shift had just occurred, he must have known how much he owed SF for that shift. He could have simply withdrawn $980 from the ATM, instead of $1000, which would have meant he had cash on him of denominations such that he was able to pay SF a sum similar to that actually owed to her ($80). 275 Alternatively, SF gave unchallenged evidence, which I accept, that in the past, if the accused did not have the cash to pay her, she would arrange to meet him on a later occasion at the Virginia pub. The accused could have made such an arrangement with SF on this night. There was no necessity for him to go home via the ATM to get cash to pay her and/or to pay her more than he owed her, as he did not have the correct change on him at that time. 276 If, as the accused claimed, SF performed poorly at work that night, the fact he overpaid her, even in comparison to what he would pay a good worker, simply makes no sense. However, the accused gave evidence that he also gave her his last cigarette, then another cigarette, two cans of Red Bull (one that he handed her upon returning from the OTR and another when he dropped her at the house) and a bag of tomatoes, as well as acceding to her request for him to drop her home, being otherwise out of his way. I am satisfied that this level of generosity is inconsistent with the accused’s evidence that SF performed poorly that night, even if the accused was a ‘good boss’ and needed workers. -- 46 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 45 277 I do not accept the accused’s unsupported evidence to the effect that SF was upset during her shift, was not her usual self, and was agitated and otherwise distracted. 278 The accused gave evidence that at the end of her shift, SF asked him for a cigarette and that he gave her the last cigarette from his packet. SF denied this. 279 SF gave evidence that she did not smoke often and did not buy her own cigarettes. She also gave evidence that she had her vape with her, at work, and may have vaped during her work breaks. I accept SF’s evidence to this effect. 280 I also accept the accused’s evidence that he was a regular smoker, as demonstrated by the fact he bought a packet of cigarettes at the OTR that night. 281 However, contrary to the closing submissions made by defence counsel, there was no evidence to support a finding that SF knew, at any time prior to commencing the journey home with the accused, that the accused smoked cigarettes. She was never asked if she had seen the accused smoking at work, nor did she give any evidence that the accused had, in fact, smoked at work, and/or in her presence, at any time prior to commencing the journey home together that night. 282 It was suggested that the accused’s evidence on this topic should be accepted over that given by SF, as it made sense for her to want to relax, by smoking a cigarette, after finishing a long night’s work. However, SF had her vape with her and could have used that, rather than ask her boss for a cigarette, particularly given she was not a regular smoker. Irrespective of whether she asked the accused for a lift home, or he offered her a lift, it is unusual that in circumstances where he was already going out of his way to do her a favour, SF would ask for a further favour of this type. 283 There was another aspect of the accused’s evidence on this topic that made it difficult to accept. He claimed that before he gave SF this (first) cigarette, he took a drag from it and then gave it to her. He was her boss. She had only worked for him for several weeks. They were not close friends or family workers. I consider it implausible in these circumstances, that he would do this, particularly where he was only minutes away from the OTR where he intended to buy a pack of cigarettes, meaning he would shortly have his own cigarette to smoke in any event. 284 I do not accept the accused’s evidence that SF asked him for a cigarette as they left work that night. 285 The accused gave evidence that after SF finished work, she asked him for a lift home. SF denied this. She was adamant that the accused had offered her a lift home. She also gave evidence, corroborated by that given by both her mother and TT, that it was planned for TT to come and get her after work, and that she would call TT once she finished work. -- 47 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 46 286 SF was very open about the fact that the accused had previously driven both her and her sister home from work. She acknowledged he was known to help workers by offering them transport. There was simply no reason for her to lie about how it came to be that she was driven home by the accused, in circumstances where there was no dispute that he had done so before and did so on this occasion. 287 I accept the evidence of TT and KG that it had been pre-arranged that TT would collect SF from work that night, just as he had driven her to work that night. It was a relatively short distance from the workshop to the house. From a practical perspective, whilst somewhat inconvenient given the hour, it was a relatively simple and quick task for TT to come and collect her. 288 I accept SF’s evidence that it had not occurred to her to ask the accused for a lift home that night to avoid TT (or anyone else) the trouble of having to collect her. I accept her evidence, that before she called TT to come and get her, the accused offered to drive her home, and she accepted that offer, in circumstances where she did not think twice about doing so, as nothing was odd about his behaviour and he had driven her home before, without incident. 289 It follows that I do not accept the accused’s evidence that SF asked him for a lift home on the night of the alleged offending. Route taken by the accused 290 The accused lived at Salisbury. He agreed that after he dropped SF at the house, he had driven home, to his house, in Salisbury, via the route as depicted by the solid blue line on the map, Exhibit P12. This route was the most direct route. It involved the accused driving down Horseshoe Crescent, turning right onto Port Wakefield Highway and then continuing on Port Wakefield Highway until he turned left onto Waterloo Corner Road. 291 The most direct way to SF’s house from the workshop was to drive east along the continuation of Park Road, then turn left onto Port Wakefield Highway.234 292 Further, the shortest route to enable the accused to both drop SF home and to buy cigarettes (and Red Bull) involved dropping SF home first, and then taking Port Wakefield Highway, Angle Vale Road and Old Port Wakefield Road, directly to the OTR (located on Old Port Wakefield Road). 293 Even if the accused wanted a cigarette straightaway (or wanted to go to SF’s house via the ATM so he could pay SF that night, rather than later), the most direct way to SF’s house, thereafter, was simply to drive from the Bendigo Bank (located on Old Port Wakefield Road), north along Old Port Wakefield Road, then turn left onto Angle Vale Road and then turn right onto Port Wakefield Highway. 234 Exhibit P3. -- 48 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 47 294 The accused gave evidence that because of the ignition problem with his car, the motor would completely shut down. When asked whether it happened every time, or just sometimes, his answer was, ‘Any hump or any gravel road’.235 295 If the car had this ignition problem, it simply made no sense, whatsoever, for the accused to deliberately drive along bumpy, unsealed side streets, to get from the workshop to SF’s house. Instead, it made sense for him to only drive along main, sealed roads, as he did to get home, after dropping SF at her house. 296 The accused gave evidence that the route he took to SF’s house after going to the ATM was a ‘short cut’. Even if the distance he covered was shorter than that he would have covered by taking main roads, driving along unsealed and bumpy back streets, simply increased, rather than decreased, the risk of him experiencing any claimed ignition problem with his car. 297 I am mindful that Mr Tan Su Ly also gave evidence that the accused’s car had ignition issues up until the time of the accused’s arrest. Mr Ly is a current employee of the accused and acknowledged he had given evidence to help the accused. He was put in a very difficult position. 298 However, I accept Mr Ly’s evidence that the car had an ignition issue, of some type, during the time he drove it. I also accept his evidence that the problem got better, although it did not go away completely, once a new key was sourced for the car. I accept his evidence that thereafter he still drove the car slowly around the farm because ‘when it’s bumpy the engine stop’. 299 However, the issue described by Mr Ly, does not explain why the accused would deliberately choose to drive along bumpy, unsealed roads, to drop SF home, when he could have simply taken sealed, main roads, as he did to drive to his home in Salisbury. Such an issue only provides a possible explanation for why the accused may have driven at a speed lower than the speed limit when driving along a bumpy or unsealed road (such as Mr Ly did when driving that car during his employment at the accused’s farm). 300 I am not satisfied that it provides an explanation for why the accused would only drive very slowly on main, sealed roads such as the Port Wakefield Highway. In this respect I am mindful that the accused drove the car both to and from the workshop from his home in Salisbury on the night in question (at least). I consider it inherently unlikely that he would ever drive that car between those two locations, which were some distance away from each other, if there was a risk that the engine would cut out unless he drove at around 40km/hr on ordinary, sealed, main roads. 301 I am satisfied that the accused has exaggerated the extent of any ignition issue with his car at the time of the alleged offending, to provide an explanation for why 235 T 141.20. -- 49 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 48 he would only drive at about 40 km/hr on the Port Wakefield Highway as described by SF. Conversation at Virginia lights 302 The accused gave evidence that when they were stopped at the Virginia lights, SF told him that her friend had a car accident at that intersection, had hit the traffic light pole and an ambulance had been called. 303 I accept KD’s evidence that her former partner had crashed his car into the Virginia traffic lights about a year before the alleged offending. KD and SF had seen that crash, as they had been in another car, travelling behind, but were not otherwise involved in the accident. An ambulance attended at the scene. 304 I accept that there was a car accident of the type described by the accused. 305 SF initially acknowledged that there had been such an accident. However, when she was asked further questions about whether she was aware of an accident at the Virginia lights where ‘young people’ had been in the car and crashed into the traffic lights and where ‘young people’ had been taken away in an ambulance, she denied knowledge of any such accident.236 306 KD was asked specifically who was in the car that had crashed into the traffic light. Her response was ‘my ex-partner’. Similarly, when SF was first asked about any such accident, she said that her ‘friend’s partner’ had crashed into the lights. There was no evidence that there were any other people in that car at the time of the accident. If only KD’s ex-partner was in that car, there is no inconsistency between SF’s answers to the subsequent questions posed of her, and the other evidence on this topic. 307 However, someone must have told the accused about this accident, for him to know about it. 308 SF denied that she told the accused about this accident at or about the time they were stopped at the Viginia lights during the drive to her house on the night of the alleged offending. 309 However, there was undisputed evidence that the accused had previously given SF and her sister a lift home from work. SF was never asked if she had ever previously told the accused about that car accident. It may well be the case that SF (or her sister) told the accused about that accident during that earlier journey. Alternatively, several of SF’s family members had worked for the accused. KD had worked for the accused. KD was not questioned as to whether she had ever told the accused about this accident. 310 It is possible SF did tell the accused about this accident, during the journey home on the night of the alleged offending but has now simply forgotten this. Any 236 T 55.31-36; T 59.28-60.1. -- 50 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 49 such comment was otherwise an ancillary and unmemorable part of that journey home that night. If she did tell him, but now does not remember doing so, this does not otherwise cause me to doubt the reliability and credibility of her account of the alleged offending. 311 Insofar as it may be suggested that any such comment is inconsistent with SF’s account that the accused touched her on the inner right thigh while they were stopped at those traffic lights, I disagree. No one can predict how someone in the position as described by SF may react when in the situation she described. Engaging in ‘small talk’ could well have been her way of trying to take away feelings of embarrassment and awkwardness associated with being in such a position, or to otherwise try to distract the accused. 312 SF was not involved in that accident, which, on all the evidence, had occurred around a year prior to the alleged offending. There was no evidence that anyone was seriously injured in it. SF lived just around the corner from this intersection and therefore must have travelled through the intersection countless times between the time of that accident and the night of the alleged offending. I am satisfied that the fact of this prior accident is not a reasonably possible explanation for any subsequent distress suffered by SF. Stopping on Horseshoe Crescent 313 The accused gave evidence that he stopped the car on Horseshoe Crescent in response to SF’s request for him to give her another cigarette and to stop the car. SF denied this.237 314 I have carefully considered this evidence. On the accused’s account, SF had already previously asked him for a cigarette and had been smoking that cigarette during the drive home. Further, on the accused’s account, SF asked him for this second cigarette and to stop the car but had only a few drags of that second cigarette and gave it back to him. 315 This is a very unlikely scenario. SF was only minutes from her home address. If she wanted another cigarette from the accused, she could have simply asked him for it when he pulled up at her house and taken it to smoke later. 316 It is most unlikely that SF would request a second cigarette from the accused, at this location, and then not actually smoke it, instead only taking a few drags of it, and then pass it back to the accused. 317 Further, on the accused’s account, SF then started telling him a story about catching her boyfriend having sex with her best friend that day. SF denied a proposition put to her in cross-examination that when the accused stopped the car 237 See evidence outlined at [195]-[196]. -- 51 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 50 on Horseshoe Crescent, she said to him words to the effect that a short time before, she had found her boyfriend having sex with a girl she knew.238 318 SF was never specifically asked whether she had, in fact, found her boyfriend having sex with her best friend, that day. There was no evidence that any such thing had ever occurred. 319 The accused was SF’s boss, more than 30 years older than her. She had only been working for him for three or four weeks. He acknowledged that he had not otherwise sought to establish a close personal connection with her, nor was he interested in her personal life or her relationship with her boyfriend. 320 SF gave evidence that she had sexual intercourse with her boyfriend the night before the alleged offending. She subsequently agreed that if she had told Dr Teh that they had had intercourse at 3:00pm on the day of the alleged offending, that was likely accurate. This is seemingly inconsistent with SF in fact having caught her boyfriend having sex with her best friend, that day. 321 Even if SF did catch her boyfriend having sex with her best friend that day, I consider it implausible that she would disclose this to the accused, and that she would do so, while alone, in his car, only a short distance from her home, in the way as described by the accused. The most obvious person for her to confide in about this was her close friend, KD, who was only a phone call away. 322 I do not accept the accused’s evidence as to why he stopped the car, that is, because SF asked him to do so as she wanted another cigarette. I do not accept the accused’s evidence that while stopped in this location, she said anything to him about having caught her boyfriend having sex with one of her friends. 323 In the absence of there being any reliable and credible evidence that SF did catch her boyfriend having sex with her friend, on the day of the alleged offending (or at any time), I am satisfied that this is not a reasonably possible explanation for any subsequent distress suffered by SF. Summary 324 I have outlined various aspects of the accused’s evidence which I simply cannot accept. When his evidence is considered as a whole, it demonstrates, and I find, that on critical issues, he was neither a credible nor a reliable witness. I do not accept the accused’s evidence, unless it is supported by other evidence that I do accept. 325 It is not for the accused to prove, or disprove, anything. The accused bears no onus. My decision not to accept him as credible or reliable does not mean that the charges are proved. It remains necessary, putting his account to one side, for 238 T 63.24-34. -- 52 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 51 me to consider whether, as to each count, the prosecution has proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Analysis of police and expert evidence 326 Both Officer Leverington and Dr Teh were honest witnesses, who gave their evidence with the benefit of refreshing their memories from contemporaneous notes made by them at the relevant time. I am satisfied their evidence was both credible and reliable. I accept their evidence. Analysis of evidence of KD, KG and TT 327 The evidence given by both KD and KG was essentially unchallenged. 328 Both gave their evidence in an open and clear manner. I am satisfied that they were both truthful witnesses and that what they told the Court represents their honest recollection of what they remembered having occurred. 329 I accept the evidence given by both KG and KD, save and except for the evidence KG gave about TT having fallen asleep on the lounge, waiting for SF to call to pick her up. I am satisfied that this was an assumption made on her behalf and that she did not actually see TT fall asleep on the couch that night. 330 It follows that I accept the evidence given by both KG and KD as to what SF told them about the alleged offending and when she told them. I accept KD’s evidence that she heard SF crying when she told her what had happened with the accused and that she was ‘heaps upset’. I accept KG’s evidence that SF was distraught when talking to her about what the accused had done, that she was shaking and in a mess. 331 TT was the only witness who had any recollection of anyone ever telling the accused their age when working for him. I am satisfied he is mistaken about this. I am also satisfied that he is mistaken in his recollection as to precisely when SF started working for the accused. I prefer and accept SF’s evidence on this issue, it being of far more relevance and importance to her, than to TT. 332 Importantly, I accept the evidence given by KG and TT, consistent with that given by SF, that it had been pre-arranged that TT would give SF a lift home from work that night and that she was to call TT to tell her when she had finished work. Analysis of SF’s evidence General Observations 333 SF’s evidence is critical to the prosecution case as to each count and as such I have scrutinised it with great care. As to each count, I must be satisfied that her evidence as to the alleged offending is not only honest, but reliable. 334 My overall impression of SF was that she was an honest witness. Her account of the offending was consistent throughout the SF interview and throughout her -- 53 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 52 evidence.239 There were several times during the SF interview where Officer Wills returned to the alleged offending and effectively asked SF to provide a second, more detailed, version of her recollection as to what had happened. She provided a significant level of detail of the offending which, for the most part, remained consistent. 335 Defence counsel sought to portray SF as being a ‘troubled’ teenager, a manipulative person and something other than who she seemed, at first blush. However, there was no real substance to any of these submissions. 336 I am satisfied, from TT’s evidence, that SF had some disagreements with her mother at times, which meant she spent time staying at KD’s house. SF was not undertaking mainstream schooling but did attend the ‘FLO’ program. She was eager to work to make her own money. She vaped and occasionally smoked but there was no evidence that she took drugs or engaged in any anti-social behaviour. There was no evidence that she had ever been in trouble with the police or had bullied other students at school. The evidence fell short of establishing that SF was a ‘troubled’ teenager. 337 Generally speaking, SF gave her evidence in a very calm and quiet manner. Her demeanour did change when she was cross-examined about her relationship with her boyfriend and when questioned further about anything she could remember about a car accident at the Virginia lights. However, it was my impression that SF’s reaction to these lines of questioning was one of frustration. She genuinely did not understand why she was being questioned about these things, particularly her sexual relationship with her boyfriend, when she had come to court to give evidence about the alleged offending. SF was still only aged 17 at trial. I consider her reaction was understandable in the circumstances. 338 At no time did SF present as being vengeful or manipulative. To the contrary, she was very upfront about the fact the accused had been a good boss and had never previously behaved inappropriately towards her. 339 While it is possible that SF’s recollection of certain peripheral matters may contain some inaccuracies, I am satisfied that her memory as to the core details of the alleged offending in both counts 1 and 2, is both accurate and reliable. I am satisfied that she is not lying about the offending, nor is she mistaken about it, nor has she imagined it or dreamt it. I set out below, why I am so satisfied. Inconsistencies in account 340 There were some potential inconsistencies in SF’s account, however none of these related specifically to SF’s evidence of the offending. 341 The first and most significant inconsistency was the evidence SF gave, at trial, elicited during examination-in-chief, that the accused had touched her on the 239 See discussion below as to possible inconstancies in her evidence about what (otherwise) occurred during the journey home. -- 54 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 53 breast, using his left hand, when he was driving and the car was moving. In cross-examination, she described this as having occurred after they had left the intersection at the Viginia lights and before they stopped on Horseshoe Cresent. This was not part of the charged offending in count 1, all of which was said to have occurred after the accused parked the car on Horseshoe Crescent.240 This was evidence of an uncharged act. 342 SF did not describe any touching of this type in the SF interview. When asked to describe what occurred between taking off at the Virginia lights and when they stopped on Horseshoe Crescent, SF told Officer Wills:241 Um when he was driving slowly and he was, I don’t know, being weird, looking at me. I know he did wrap his arm around me and pulled me closer because it was a three seat ute and I was sitting on the passenger and he was sitting on the driver and he’s leaned in close to the middle seat. And he just said I was, he just kept saying I was warm and that’s it from, on that part there um until he stopped ... like on Horseshoe Crescent. 343 I am satisfied from a careful consideration of the SF interview that the first time she described the accused touching her breast, was when they were stopped on Horseshoe Crescent and after he had finished the cigarette, she had given back to him. She said that the accused leaned over, touched her over her top, ‘swiped over’ her breasts a few times and then touched her breast underneath her clothing and bra.242 She could not remember what hand he had used.243 344 It was submitted that this was a significant omission in SF’s account to Officer Wills and that the fact she had not told Officer Wills about it was because it did not happen. In addition, it was submitted that this was an embellishment on SF’s part and ‘yet another embellishment on her part gilding the lily’244 and a ‘radical error’.245 345 SF gave her evidence at trial in November 2025. She gave the SF interview on 5 July 2024, that is, within two weeks of the alleged offending. I am satisfied that when SF spoke to Officer Wills, her memory of what had occurred at the time of the alleged offending was clearer than when she gave evidence over a year later. Her account to Officer Wills was very detailed and specific. 346 As such, I cannot accept this aspect of SF’s evidence, namely that the accused touched her on the breast, while the car was in motion, insofar as it is inconsistent with what she told Officer Wills. However, I disagree that this was either an example (or another example) of her embellishing her evidence or ‘gilding the lily’. I consider it likely and find that SF is now genuinely mistaken in her 240 See prosecution opening address at T 9.26-34. 241 MFIP2 at line 138. Noting this was also referred to in the prosecution opening address at T 9.16-18. 242 Ibid at line 162. 243 T 28.27-37. 244 T 184.33-34. 245 T 185.18; T 185.22-27. -- 55 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 54 recollection that the accused first touched her breast when he was driving and before he stopped and parked the car on the side of Horseshoe Crescent. 347 SF told Officer Wills that during this period of time, the accused had wrapped his arm around her and pulled her in close to him and told her she was warm. What she described to Officer Wills was a significant violation of personal space and, having regard to their positions in the car, if true, must have involved the accused leaning into SF, with his left arm and touching her in an area in close proximity to her breast, if not necessarily on it. 348 It is well understood that a person’s memory is not akin to simply watching back a videotape of an event in one’s mind. Rather, what a person remembers of any event, is the core aspects of what happened. They may not necessarily remember the order in which certain things happened. That does not mean that those things they do remember happening, did not happen. 349 SF was quite clear that the accused touched her breast, over the top of her clothing, when they were stopped on Horseshoe Cresent. The fact that she now recalls that touching having started slightly earlier, when they were driving the very short distance between the Virginia lights and where the accused stopped on Horseshoe Cresent, does not otherwise cause me to doubt the credibility and reliability of SF’s account of the alleged offending which occurred when they were parked on Horseshoe Crescent. 350 There were several other potential minor inconsistencies in SF’s evidence. 351 During the SF interview, when describing the circumstances in which the accused first asked her if he could ‘stick his dick in’ her for money, she said: 246 ... and then he finally stopped, started the engine up and then asked me if he could stick his dick in me, I said ‘no, can you please take me home’ and then he proceeded to pay me money, saying he would pay me more money if I fuck him and I said ‘no’ and started crying again ... 352 In this passage, SF appears to be describing the accused saying this to her, when they were still parked on the side of Horseshoe Crescent and at the same time as he gave her the money owed for her shift. 353 However, almost immediately thereafter, SF said:247 And then after I said no again, he asked if he could stick his dick in me if he proceeds to pay money, so he was offering me money to fuck him and I said “no” and then he ended up driving off slowly from the spot he was parked at and then around the bend to take me home … 354 She also told Officer Wills that the accused then drove her down the driveway to her house and when they were about at the gate, he gave her the money he owed 246 MFIP2 at line 174. 247 MFIP2 at line 182. -- 56 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 55 her, she grabbed her stuff and got out of the car.248 SF gave evidence in re- examination, that the accused handed her the money he owed her for the shift when they got to her house.249 355 After carefully considering this evidence, I am satisfied that there is no real inconsistency. SF spoke quite quickly during parts of the SF interview particularly those aspects relating to the offending. I am satisfied that she simply misspoke when she initially said words to the effect that the accused ‘proceeded to pay her’, when they were still stationary on Horseshoe Cresent. 356 Having regard to all of SF’s evidence, I am satisfied that SF recalls the accused paying her for her shift when they got to her house. She said that to Officer Wills and she reiterated that in re-examination. I am satisfied that the apparent inconsistency between that evidence and the earlier evidence outlined at paragraph 351 herein was simply the result of SF getting her words jumbled when initially retelling this aspect of her account, something that many people do, particularly if they are speaking when under pressure, or in unfamiliar circumstances. It must be remembered that SF was a 16-year-old girl, speaking to a male police officer, about this very personal matter. 357 There was another apparent inconsistency in SF’s evidence relating to when it was that she last had intercourse with her boyfriend prior to the alleged offending. SF initially said, with conviction, that this occurred the night before the alleged offending and that this was something she had told the police, when they first came to her house, after the alleged offending was first reported to them. However, she later agreed that she had told Dr Teh that she last had intercourse with her boyfriend at 3:00pm that day and that this was likely accurate.250 358 When giving this evidence, SF was noticeably frustrated as to why she was being asked this question, which she perceived had no relevance to the alleged offending. She had obviously told Dr Teh about the fact of this prior intercourse. Whether that intercourse occurred the night before, or 3:00pm on the day of the alleged offending, was only relevant to a determination of the reliability of SF’s evidence. 359 SF effectively agreed with the proposition that she had told Dr Teh that she and her boyfriend had intercourse at 3:00pm that day (rather than the night before). She did so in the context of accepting a proposition that in all likelihood, her recollection as to the timing of that act was better when she saw Dr Teh. That was a reasonable concession for SF to make. 360 Whether that prior intercourse was the night before or the afternoon before the alleged offending is irrelevant. SF acknowledged the fact of recent prior intercourse with her boyfriend. Insofar as she was unable to recall, at trial, whether 248 Ibid at line 258. 249 T 74.7-8. 250 T 68.3-11. -- 57 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 56 that intercourse occurred the night before the alleged offending or the afternoon prior to the alleged offending, does not otherwise impact on my assessment of the reliability of her account of the alleged offending. 361 Much was made of the fact that SF’s evidence as to how her shift for the night of the offending came to be arranged, was seemingly inconsistent with the text messages later produced and tendered through the accused.251 362 When giving her evidence on this topic, SF disagreed with propositions put to her that she had contacted the accused by text a few days prior to that shift, asking the accused whether he had any work for her. She maintained that he had asked her about a day or two before, whether she was free to work that night.252 She said that a ‘firm arrangement’ was first made for her to work that night, packing tomatoes, a couple of days before. She disagreed it was at about 5:00pm that afternoon.253 363 SF was then asked specific questions phrased by reference to the contents of the text messages exchanged between her and the accused. She could not remember sending or receiving certain messages (noting that she was never actually show the messages). 364 The text messages in evidence demonstrate, and I find, that on Sunday 23 June 2024 at about 1:49pm, SF sent a text message to the accused wherein she stated: hey sok. I was wondering if you need me to work any shifts this week and wondering if I could pick up my pay sometime for working on Monday 10-5 pm [SF] 365 Thereafter, there were messages exchanged between SF and the accused which demonstrate that an arrangement was made for SF to meet the accused at a location to collect her outstanding pay. However, the messages in evidence are incomplete, suggesting they also communicated via some other means, to determine when and where they would meet for that purpose. 366 The accused did not send a return message to SF answering the second part of her initial query, namely if he wanted her to work any shifts that week. I am satisfied that this was why SF sent a second message to the accused on Sunday 23 June 2024 at 7:46pm, asking ‘may I work any shifts this week’. 367 There is nothing in Exhibit D11 to show that the accused ever replied to that message. Instead, SF sent the accused a message at 9:11pm apologising for the fact that she would not be able to work in the morning but could start work at 5:00pm and then work late. It is quite clear, and I find, that there must have been some 251 Exhibit D11. 252 T 43.1-24; T 44.33-38. 253 T43.26-32. -- 58 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 57 other communication between the accused and SF between those two messages wherein the accused confirmed he needed her to work on a certain day that week. 368 The next day, SF sought clarification as to whether the accused wanted her to work that night (24 June) or tomorrow (25 June). The accused replied ‘Tomorrow okayed’ and later sent her a message to say that he would know what time he needed her ‘once’s (sic) I pick up’. Thereafter, SF sent several messages seeking confirmation of the starting time. The accused replied, ‘Sorry, not yet. I’ll let you know as soon as possible okay? Thank you’. SF then made arrangements with the accused for her to ring her to confirm the starting time. 369 As such, the evidence SF gave that it was arranged for her to work the shift on Tuesday 25 June 2024, a day or two before this, was accurate. Although SF thought the arrangement was made ‘a couple of days before’, rather than the day before, that difference is irrelevant in circumstances where she was being asked to recall a specific detail of a peripheral matter, over a year after the event. 370 SF disagreed that she had sent the accused ‘text after text saying ‘Have you got any work? Have you got any work?’ Her response was, in fact, accurate. 371 I am satisfied the text messages in Exhibit D11 only represent part of the communications made between SF and the accused relevant to the confirmation of her shift on 25 June 2024. I am further satisfied that when those messages are viewed in context, they demonstrate that although SF asked the accused if he needed her to work a shift that week, thereafter she was simply seeking confirmation as to precisely when he needed her on either 24 or 25 June, in circumstances where he must have told her he likely needed her to work on one (or both) of those days. The messages simply do not make sense otherwise. It was not the case that she was persistently texting the accused, requesting that he allocate her shifts. She was not sending him ‘text after text’ saying ‘Have you got any work? Have you got any work?’ 372 SF did not have a perfect recollection of the circumstances in which that shift was arranged. However, it would be surprising if she did, given the passage of time. Further, it was quite clear that SF was struggling to understand some of the questions posed during this line of questioning.254 SF presented of average intelligence with a relatively limited vocabulary. For example, when asked during her evidence-in-chief as to where her house was located on a map, relative to where a certain word appeared on that map, she sought clarification as to what was meant by that.255 My impression was that the nuances of some of the questions posed of SF in cross-examination may not have been fully understood by her. I am satisfied that this and the passage of time explains any differences in her evidence and what can be seen from the text messages in Exhibit D11. 254 See her responses at T 44.3 and T 44.8. 255 T 22.28. -- 59 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 58 373 The fact of these minor differences in SF’s account of what were peripheral matters only, does not cause me to otherwise have a reasonable doubt as to the reliability (and credibility) of her evidence as to the alleged offending. Implausibility of account 374 Counsel for the accused submitted that there were several aspects of SF’s evidence which were implausible, such that the Court should have a reasonable doubt as to her account of the alleged offending. 375 It was submitted that the uncharged acts as described by SF simply could not have occurred, as it was physically impossible for the accused to continue to drive the car, while touching her in the manner as alleged, having regard to their respective positions in that vehicle. I disagree with that submission. 376 There are photographs of the Holden Rodeo utility in evidence.256 The car had what was effectively a bench front seat, meaning that there was no centre console between the driver’s seat and the passenger seat. As such, although SF was seated in the left passenger seat and the accused was driving, I am satisfied that the distance between them in those positions and the configuration of that space, was not such as to make it physically impossible for the accused to either touch her on the back of her neck or on her hair, with his left hand, or to lean over and kiss her on the neck and cheek while he was driving between the workshop and the OTR. 377 The accused acknowledged he was driving slowly. It was very late, on a Tuesday night, such that there was unlikely to have been much, if any, traffic, on the roads taken by the accused. The accused was a middle-aged man and an experienced driver, having owned and driven the Holden Rodeo utility for about 10 years. Many drivers do other things, rather than maintaining 100% concentration on the road ahead of them, particularly if they are driving slowly or in minimal traffic. For example, they lean over to get things out of bags positioned on the passenger seat, such as a ringing mobile phone. 378 It is evident from the photographs and from SF’s evidence that the car was a manual. That meant that at times, the accused would need to use his left hand to change gears. However, that does not mean there were not times when the vehicle was in motion and his left hand was free, when he was not changing gears. The very fact the car was a manual meant that at times, the accused would need to drive, without always keeping both hands on the steering wheel. I am satisfied that the accused was able to maintain effective control over the vehicle while simultaneously touching SF in the way she described. 379 Similarly, I am satisfied that it was not physically impossible for the accused to lean over and kiss SF, or to pull her towards him by putting his left arm around her shoulder, while driving. SF was a petite young woman and although the accused is not a large man, I am satisfied he was physically larger than SF and 256 Exhibit P8. -- 60 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 59 physically capable of touching SF in the way she described, during what was otherwise a slow journey, through very light (if any) traffic. 380 Similarly, I am satisfied that it was physically possible for the accused to touch SF’s inner right thigh, with his left hand, when they were stationary at the Virginia lights. 381 Another aspect of SF’s account said to make the allegations implausible was the fact that there was no evidence that at any time prior to the journey from the accused’s workshop to SF’s house, the accused had ever shown any romantic interest in SF, or behaved inappropriately towards her, or engaged in any type of grooming behaviour. SF was quite open and up front about that. Incidental to this submission was that if the accused was intent on spending time with SF, the most obvious way for him to achieve that was to ask her to join him inside the OTR to get some coffee or some food. 382 As previously stated, I reject the accused’s evidence that SF asked him to drive him home. Even if she did ask him to drive her home, the fact of the journey, provided the accused with an opportunity to be alone with SF, in the car, in circumstances where there was no evidence they had ever previously been alone together before. 383 It was cold and late at night. Rather than drive SF straight home, the accused elected to go out of his way to the OTR, then to the bank, and then drive to SF’s house via back streets. What could have been a quick drive home, over in a matter of minutes, was extended, in time, considerably, by his actions. 384 Further, I accept SF’s evidence that the accused offered her a cigarette when he parked the car on Horseshoe Crescent. On the accused’s own account, he gave her a can of Red Bull once he returned to the car from the OTR. There was no need for the accused to orchestrate any further opportunity to spend time with SF that night as a precursor to any alleged offending, when he was already alone in his car with her. 385 On SF’s account, the touching she described as having occurred in the car, on the way to the OTR, and then at the Virginia lights, was a precursor to the more serious and invasive sexual touching which occurred when the accused parked the car on the side of Horseshoe Crescent. The very fact that SF reacted to that earlier touching by staying in the car and not screaming at him or lashing out violently at him, may well have emboldened him to take that next step – the next step being the offending. 386 I accept SF’s evidence that she had only been working for the accused for three to four weeks before this. She described other workers being present at the workshop on the night of the alleged offending. There was unchallenged evidence that on other occasions she was working with TT, KD and her sister, D. As such, -- 61 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 60 I am satisfied that there was very limited, if any, opportunity for the accused to ‘groom’ SF before the drive home that night. 387 I accept SF’s evidence as to what occurred, in the car, before they arrived at the OTR. I also accept SF’s evidence that while they were stopped at the Virginia lights, the accused touched her on her inner right thigh. This prior conduct provides the context for what later occurred. 388 The accused and SF were alone together, in a confined space. It was cold and late at night. She was a vulnerable 16-year-old employee. The circumstances were such that they provided the ideal opportunity for the alleged offending. I therefore reject the submission that SF’s account was implausible in circumstances where before the journey home the accused had not demonstrated any sexual attraction towards her, nor actively ‘groomed her’. 389 Ancillary to this argument was that it was implausible that the accused would abuse SF so close to her house, rather than in a secluded location. However, SF gave unchallenged evidence, which I accept, that her house was located at the end of a very long driveway off Horseshoe Crescent that took some two minutes to drive down. She also gave unchallenged evidence as to precisely where the accused stopped the car on Horseshoe Crescent. I accept that evidence. 390 The location of the house vis a vis the location where the accused stopped the car is apparent from the aerial map, marked by SF.257Where the accused stopped the car was, in fact, in a very secluded location. It was a considerable distance away from the driveway entrance, on a back street, next to a body of water, adjacent to farming land. There are no streetlights visible in the photographs of the location, nor any houses or commercial buildings. The location where the accused stopped the car was dark, secluded and still a long distance, by foot, from SF’s house. It was a location where there was very little likelihood of anyone driving or walking past, at that time of night and observing the alleged offending. 391 Counsel for the accused also submitted that if SF was crying, as she alleged, as they drove to her house, after the alleged offending, one would then expect him to do whatever he could to try to appease her and to calm her down, before he dropped her home, to reduce the likelihood of that offending being disclosed. However, there was no dispute that when the accused arrived at SF’s house, he gave her a bag of tomatoes, a can of Red Bull and her wage. On the accused’s evidence, he gave SF more money than she had earned during her shift. As such, the accused did take steps that were available to him, to endeavour to endear himself to SF when he finally dropped her home. 392 The primary submission advanced by counsel for the accused was that the way SF reacted to the touching she described as having occurred before the OTR, was simply inconsistent with it having occurred. That is, she did not get out of the car at the OTR and seek help or call TT or her mother to come and get her. She did 257 Exhibit P3 at p 2. -- 62 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 61 not message a friend asking for help. She effectively did nothing, instead choosing to stay in the car and continue the journey home with the accused. 393 It was submitted that in the circumstances as SF described, SF would have been more concerned to act in a way as to protect her safety, rather than worry about her employment. I disagree. 394 What SF described in terms of the accused touching her, before they reached the OTR (and the bank), was significantly less invasive touching than that comprising the alleged offending. She described the accused touching her hair and the back of the neck and kissing her on the neck and cheek. I am satisfied that such touching was unwanted. 395 SF was a 16-year-old girl in a car, alone at night, in a car with her 47-year- old employer, whom she had only ever considered to be a good boss. He had only ever previously been kind to her and had generously offered her a lift home. He had never acted inappropriately towards her before. 396 SF could not have known what would occur thereafter. She did not have the benefit of hindsight. She was in an incredibly vulnerable position. The accused was not only SF’s employer but also employed other members of her extended family and her friend, KD. As such, SF had not only her own ongoing employment to worry about in terms of how she responded, but that of her family and friends. 397 I am satisfied that the fact that SF effectively did nothing is readily understandable, given the incredibly awkward and difficult situation she found herself in. I reject the submission that the way SF responded was inconsistent with her account. As I said previously, no one can predict how a person, particularly a person in SF’s circumstances, may act when in such a situation. 398 Rather than SF’s account being implausible, several important aspects of her evidence were compelling. 399 SF described the alleged offending in detail to Officer Wills. Her account to Officer Wills did not waiver. Her description of how the accused moved his hand under each of the three layers of her clothing, where he touched her, and how she felt at that time (that is, ‘I felt like I was just frozen. I felt like I couldn’t even speak’), was particularly compelling.258 The way she described what the accused did, and how she felt at that time, was, in my view, indicative of SF recounting something that she had actually experienced. 400 Similarly, when asked what, if anything, the accused had said to her during the ride home, before the alleged offending, SF remembered that he kept telling her how warm she was and had asked her if he missed her. She was confused about the latter, so she had just said no. This evidence resonated as being a genuine 258 See, in particular, MFIP2 at lines 144-162, line 174 and line 208. -- 63 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 62 account of what was said, by the accused, at that time and consistent with it not only being a very cold night but with him endeavouring to endear himself to her. Medical evidence 401 The two small abrasions seen by Dr Teh upon external examination of SF’s vagina are consistent either with the alleged offending, or with her having engaged in penile vaginal intercourse with her boyfriend earlier that same day. 402 SF gave evidence that she felt a burning sensation when she urinated immediately after the alleged offending. She denied having experienced any similar issues, that day, before the offending. I accept that evidence. 403 However, SF was also suffering from candida albicans and bacterial vaginosis. I accept Dr Teh’s evidence that such infections can increase the risk of a person suffering injury (ie abrasions) from vaginal trauma. The infections may also account for the symptoms described by SF, albeit both infections can also be symptomless. 404 Having regard to this evidence, I am satisfied that the abrasions and symptoms described by SF, while consistent with the alleged offending, can also be reasonably explained on other alternative bases. As such, I have not attributed any weight to this evidence. Complaint evidence 405 Shortly after she arrived at the house, SF called her very close friend, KD, and told her about the alleged offending. Although there was a slight difference in the evidence given by SF and KD as to precisely what SF told KD, the effect of their evidence as to what was said, was the same – that is, that the accused had touched her inappropriately. 406 Shortly thereafter, SF spoke to her mother and told her about the alleged offending in more detail. Again, although SF’s evidence about the detail of what she told her mother was slightly different to that recounted by her mother, I am satisfied that what SF described was referrable to the alleged offending and its ancillary circumstances as described by SF. 407 KG recalled SF telling her that the accused had hurt her, had put her hands in her vagina and had touched her on the boobs. She also gave unchallenged evidence that SF told her the accused had offered her extra money if he could sleep with her. I accept KG’s evidence to this effect. 408 There was some criticism directed at SF for not immediately waking her sister, or TT, to complain about the alleged offending. SF gave evidence that she tried to wake her sister, but when she did not wake up, she decided to call KD. I accept that evidence. -- 64 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 63 409 SF’s initial complaint was made almost as soon as she got home, after the alleged offending. She spoke to her very close friend and her mother about it, and told them, in summary form, what had occurred. She was distressed and crying while doing so. I am satisfied that this evidence demonstrates considerable consistency of conduct on the part of SF, in terms of the timing of the complaint, who she told and what she said about the alleged offending. Motive to lie 410 It was the defence case that SF was lying about the alleged offending. 411 Although it was suggested to SF that the accused had not offended against her in the way she alleged nor had he touched her inappropriately while in the car at all during the ride home, it was never specifically suggested to SF that she had lied about the alleged offending (or that she had lied about it, for any particular reason). 412 However, during cross-examination, SF was asked questions directed at establishing that she had a potential motive (or motives) to lie about the alleged offending. One such motive appeared to relate to her alleged anger at men in general because she had caught her boyfriend cheating on her. 413 I refer to my previous findings on this topic. I do not accept the accused’s evidence that SF told him, while they were stopped on Horseshoe Crescent, that recently she had found her boyfriend having sex with a girl she knew.259 I accept SF’s evidence that she made no such comment to the accused. There was no evidence that SF ever caught her boyfriend cheating on her. 414 I reject this alleged motive for SF to lie about the alleged offending. 415 SF was cross-examined about her performance at work on the night of the offending. She denied propositions put to her that she was upset at work, or had dropped things, or had otherwise performed poorly at work that night. 416 As previously outlined, I do not accept the accused’s evidence that she was not her usual self, had been distracted, and kept running off the line. 417 In addition, there was no evidence that the accused had ever reprimanded SF for any perceived poor work performance or even that he had ever raised any concern about her performance with her. As such, insofar as it may be suggested that there was something about SF’s work performance (and/or the accused’s reaction to it) which provided a motive to lie, there was simply insufficient evidence, let alone any reliable evidence, to support any such finding. 418 I reject any suggestion that SF had a motive to lie about the alleged offending arising from anything to do with the standard of her work that night. 259 T 63.24-34. -- 65 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 64 419 Of course, a witness can lie for many reasons. The fact that I reject there being any specific motive to lie does not mean SF is telling the truth. It remains for me to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that SF’s account of the alleged offending, in each count, is both truthful and reliable. 420 Despite appearing frustrated at times during cross-examination, when questioned on ancillary topics, at no time did SF present as angry, vengeful or vindictive. She never sought to present the accused as a generally bad person. She agreed he was a good boss. She told Officer Wills, ‘He’s never been rude, never been flirty or anything towards me, he’s always just been like a boss. He was good to me.’260 This is inconsistent with her trying to portray the accused as being something he was not. 421 Further, the text messages tendered as Exhibit D11 demonstrate, and I find, that SF was very keen to work for the accused. She wanted to earn some extra cash. She was not the only member of her family who worked for him. As a matter of commonsense, it is most unlikely that that she would concoct the allegations against the accused, in these circumstances. 422 As I said at the outset, my overall impression of SF was that she was an honest witness. There were compelling aspects of her account of the alleged offending, which account was coherent and consistent. The complaint evidence demonstrates significant consistency in terms of her conduct. 423 I am satisfied that SF was telling the truth about the alleged offending. Summary 424 Having carefully scrutinised SF’s evidence, in the context of all of the evidence, I am satisfied that she was an honest witness, who was telling the truth about the alleged offending. 425 Notwithstanding my findings at paragraph 346 herein, I am satisfied that the circumstances of the offending as described by SF are such that she simply could not be mistaken about what she described, as to each offence. Further, I am satisfied that what SF recounted as to each alleged offence, was a real lived experience, and not the product of a dream or of her imagination. 426 I have carefully considered whether as to any count, there is a reasonable possibility, having regard to all of the evidence, that the accused was telling the truth when he denied the alleged offending. Having done so, I am satisfied there is no such reasonable possibility. 260 MFIP2 at line 278. -- 66 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 65 Findings of fact 427 I refer to my previous findings as to what occurred during the journey from the accused’s workplace, prior to the accused parking the car on the side of Horseshoe Cresent and prior to the offending. 428 I accept SF’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt and find that at approximately 11:30pm on 25 June 2024, while the accused was driving SF home from work, the accused stopped the car on the side of Horseshoe Crescent under the pretext of wanting to have a cigarette. While the car was parked in this position, the accused lent over SF and touched her first, on her breasts, over the top of her clothing. He then moved his hand under her jacket, her jumper and bra and started squeezing her left breast. 429 After touching her breast, the accused moved his hand down her stomach and underneath her tracksuit pants and leggings. The accused touched SF on her vagina, over the top of her underwear, and then moved his hand under her underwear. He started playing with her clitoris and then inserted at least three of his fingers into SF’s vagina. 430 I accept SF’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt and find that while he was doing this, SF effectively froze and was unable to speak and was crying. 431 Notwithstanding SF did not tell the accused to stop when he inserted his fingers in her vagina nor physically fight back, nor scream, the accused knew she did not consent to engage in this sexual activity. She was crying. She was his much younger, casual employee, with whom he had no prior personal relationship. At the very least, the accused must have been aware of the possibility that SF might not be consenting to him inserting his fingers in her vagina but decided to proceed regardless of that possibility and/or the accused did not take any reasonable steps to ascertain whether SF did in fact consent to this activity before deciding to proceed. 432 For the sake of completeness, I also accept SF’s evidence and find that after the alleged offending, the accused offered to give her extra money if she would engage in penile vaginal intercourse with her, which offer she refused. 433 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and find that on 25 June 2024 at Two Wells: 1. the accused intentionally and unlawfully applied force to SF by touching her on the left breast; 2. the application of force was accompanied by circumstances of indecency and had a sexual connotation; 3. at this time, SF was aged under 17 years and the accused was aged 47; -- 67 of 68 -- [2026] SADC 45 66 4. at this time, the accused was SF’s employer and therefore a person in a position of authority with respect to SF within the meaning of s 57(4)(h) of the Act; 5. although it is irrelevant whether SF was consenting to the activity, I am satisfied, on all of the evidence, that she was not so consenting and that the accused must have known this, or at the very least was recklessly indifferent as to whether or not she consented and proceeded to touch her on the breast in any event; 6. the accused inserted at least three of his fingers in SF’s vagina; and 7. at the time the accused inserted his fingers into SF’s vagina, he either knew she was not consenting to such act, or at the very least was recklessly indifferent to the fact she was not consenting. Verdict 434 The accused is guilty of counts 1 and 2 on the Information. In those circumstances, there is no requirement for me to return a verdict as to count 3. -- 68 of 68 --