[2026] SASC 13

Prosecution: THE KING Counsel: MS M WILKINSON WITH MS A TABUTEAU - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Accused: THOMAS ROBERT STAPLETON-WESCOTT Counsel: MR D MOEN - Solicitor: EVITTS LEGAL Hearing Date/s: 09/10/2024 to 25/10/2024, 30/10/2024 to 14/11/2024, 05/03/2025 File No/s: SCCRM-24-011314 B SUPREME 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 STAPLETON-WESCOTT Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2026] SASC 13 Reasons for the Verdicts of the Honourable Justice Lovell 13 February 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - ATTEMPT - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - ATTEMPTED MURDER CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY - ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY On 25 April 2023, at around 8:30 pm, a person entered the premises at 18 Small Crescent, Smithfield Plains and savagely attacked the two occupants. Both occupants sustained serious head injuries but survived. The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder contrary to ss 11 and 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (Counts 1 and 3). In the alternative, the accused was charged with two counts of aggravated cause serious harm with intent to cause serious harm contrary to s 23(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (Counts 2 and 4). Due to the head injuries the occupants suffered they were unable to identify the offender. The prosecution case against the accused was circumstantial. In addition, the prosecution called the accused’s brother and his alibi witness to establish that he was not the offender. The accused gave evidence at trial alleging that it was his brother who committed the offence. Held: The evidence established that the only rational inference from all the evidence was that the accused was the offender. However, the prosecution did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time the accused struck the occupants he intended to kill them. -- 1 of 100 -- Verdicts 1. As to Count 1 – not guilty. 2. As to Count 2 – guilty. 3. As to Count 3 – not guilty. 4. As to Count 4 – guilty. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 11, 23(1), 270; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P, referred to. Broadhurst v The Queen [1964] AC 441; Dent v The King [2024] SASCA 12; Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; Harris v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 321; Hutchinson v Van Den Berg [2024] SASCA 117; Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) (2023) 416 ALR 24; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; R v Ball [1911] AC 47; R v Georgiev (2001) 119 A Crim R 363 ; R v Pfennig [2018] SASCFC 27; R v Quist (2017) 127 SASR 471, discussed. -- 2 of 100 -- R v STAPLETON-WESCOTT [2026] SASC 13 Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone LOVELL J. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 Elements of the offences .............................................................................................................. 4 Attempted murder ...................................................................................................................... 4 Aggravated cause serious harm with intent to cause serious harm ........................................ 5 Legal directions ............................................................................................................................ 5 Circumstantial evidence ............................................................................................................ 6 Motive ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Discreditable conduct evidence................................................................................................. 8 Fact finding ............................................................................................................................. 10 Expert evidence direction ........................................................................................................ 11 Accused’s evidence .................................................................................................................. 11 Brief overview of the issues at trial .......................................................................................... 12 Structure of the reasons ............................................................................................................. 15 Events occurring on the morning of 24 April 2023 ................................................................. 16 Events occurring on the afternoon of 24 April 2023 ............................................................... 19 Events of 25 April 2023 .............................................................................................................. 22 Toni’s evidence of 25 April 2023 ............................................................................................ 22 Neil’s evidence of 25 April 2023 ............................................................................................. 23 Medical evidence ........................................................................................................................ 23 Treatment at the scene ............................................................................................................ 23 Neil’s assessment and treatment in hospital .......................................................................... 24 Toni’s treatment and assessment in hospital ......................................................................... 27 Crime scene................................................................................................................................. 28 Occupants of 16 Small Crescent ............................................................................................... 29 Ms Hayford .............................................................................................................................. 30 Mr Dahmes .............................................................................................................................. 32 Ms Minnis-Haenen ................................................................................................................. 32 Ms Giddings ................................................................................................................................ 34 The accused’s evidence on the topic of the shower ............................................................... 35 Mr Arace ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Dr Sorell ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Structure of the telecommunications system .......................................................................... 37 Beau’s evidence .......................................................................................................................... 39 Examination-in-chief .............................................................................................................. 40 Beau’s movements on the evening of 25 April 2023 ............................................................ 42 Beau’s movements on 26 April 2023 ................................................................................... 44 Cross-examination .................................................................................................................. 45 Beau’s recall ............................................................................................................................ 47 Dr Sorell’s recall......................................................................................................................... 50 Ms Taylor .................................................................................................................................... 51 -- 3 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 2 Ms Nickles-Caston...................................................................................................................... 51 Ms Nickles-Caston’s recall ..................................................................................................... 52 Ms Thompson ............................................................................................................................. 52 Police attendance at the accused’s premises ............................................................................ 54 Examination of the lanyard, Exhibit P4 ................................................................................ 54 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 56 Other DNA evidence ............................................................................................................... 57 A narrow investigation? ............................................................................................................ 58 The accused’s movements on the evening of 25 April 2023 ................................................... 59 CCTV footage .......................................................................................................................... 59 Telephone records ................................................................................................................... 60 Movement of Toni’s phone ..................................................................................................... 62 The accused’s record of interview ............................................................................................ 64 Alleged conversation before the video interview commenced ............................................... 66 The prison calls .......................................................................................................................... 67 Evidence of the accused as to his movements on 25 April 2023 ............................................. 67 Prison calls .............................................................................................................................. 70 30 April 2023 at 1:50 pm ..................................................................................................... 70 16 June 2023 at 9:26 am ...................................................................................................... 71 21 June 2023 at 9:55 am ...................................................................................................... 72 28 June 2023 at 8:25am ....................................................................................................... 72 28 June 2023 at 8:47 am ...................................................................................................... 72 23 July 2023 at 8:31 am....................................................................................................... 73 Google Timeline ................................................................................................................... 73 15 August 2023 at 1:22 pm .................................................................................................. 74 15 August 2023 at 2:17 pm .................................................................................................. 74 16 August 2023 at 8:25 am .................................................................................................. 74 16 August 2023 at 9:23 am .................................................................................................. 75 16 August 2023 at 10:03 am ................................................................................................ 75 16 August 2023 at 10:34 am ................................................................................................ 75 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 75 16 August 2023 at 1:31 pm .................................................................................................. 77 16 August 2023 at 2:06 pm .................................................................................................. 77 16 August 2023 at 3:34 pm .................................................................................................. 77 26 August 2023 at 2:17 pm .................................................................................................. 78 26 August 2023 at 2:37 pm .................................................................................................. 80 27 August 2023 at 8:43 am .................................................................................................. 81 27 August 2023 at 9:29 am .................................................................................................. 81 27 August 2023 at 1:29 pm .................................................................................................. 82 27 August 2023 at 2:11 pm .................................................................................................. 82 28 August 2023 at 9:50 am .................................................................................................. 82 28 August 2023 at 10:22 am ................................................................................................ 82 3 September 2023 at 9:00 am .............................................................................................. 82 20 September 2023 at 10:04 am .......................................................................................... 83 The accused’s credibility, honesty and reliability ................................................................... 83 Was there a meeting near the old Holden factory between Beau and the accused? ............ 90 What did the accused intend? ................................................................................................... 95 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 97 -- 4 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 3 Toni .......................................................................................................................................... 97 Neil ........................................................................................................................................... 97 Verdicts ....................................................................................................................................... 98 -- 5 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 4 Introduction 1 In April 2023, Mr Timothy Wescott (“Mr Wescott”) was living in a caravan parked at the premises of 18 Small Crescent, Smithfield Plains. He had lived there for some years. Antoinette MacSkimming (“Toni”) and Neil Sieben (“Neil”) lived in the house at 18 Small Crescent. The three of them were friends. Mr Wescott and Toni were drug addicts. 2 On the morning of 24 April 2023, Mr Wescott was found by Neil and a neighbour deceased. Tragically it appears Mr Wescott died alone in his caravan. While there was no evidence as to the cause of death it appears likely, given items found in the caravan, that he died from a drug overdose. Ambulance officers and the police attended the scene. Mr Wescott’s relatives were contacted. Mr Wescott’s son, Thomas Stapleton-Wescott, attended at 18 Small Crescent. Beau Stapleton-Wescott (“Beau”), also a son of Mr Wescott, did not attend on that morning. 3 I will refer to Thomas from here as “the accused” to distinguish him from his brother, Beau. During the morning the accused became involved in an argument with Toni and Neil about ownership of the caravan, property within the caravan and a vehicle. The police had to intervene. Later that day further arguments occurred and Neil and the accused became involved in a physical altercation. Again, the police were required to intervene. 4 The following day on 25 April 2023, Anzac Day, at around 8:30 pm someone entered the house at 18 Small Crescent and savagely attacked Toni and Neil. They both sustained serious head injuries but survived. The prosecution allege that the accused was the offender having both motive and opportunity. At trial, the accused alleged his brother, Beau, was the offender. 5 The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder,1 the victims being Toni and Neil. In the alternative, the accused was charged with two counts of aggravated cause serious harm with intent to cause serious harm.2 6 The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial before me sitting without a jury. Elements of the offences Attempted murder 7 The prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. the accused intended to kill Toni and Neil; 1 Contrary to ss 11 and 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“CLCA”). 2 Contrary to s 23(1) of the CLCA. -- 6 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 5 2. the accused attempted to execute that intention to kill in the sense that the accused did an act or a series of acts which were immediately directed towards fulfilling that intention; and 3. the act or series of acts were done without lawful excuse. Aggravated cause serious harm with intent to cause serious harm 8 The prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. the accused caused harm to Toni and Neil; 2. the accused caused harm that is serious; 3. the accused acted deliberately, as opposed to accidentally; 4. the accused acted unlawfully; and 5. at the time the accused caused serious harm, the accused intended to cause serious harm to Toni and Neil. 9 The prosecution allege that the accused used or threatened to use an offensive weapon, namely an axe, to commit or when committing the offences. The prosecution must prove this circumstance of aggravation before the accused can be found guilty of aggravated cause serious harm with intent to cause serious harm. Legal directions 10 As the Judge of the facts and law, I must find the facts and draw the inferences from them as well as apply the law to the facts that I find. I must bring an open and unbiased mind to the evidence and view it clinically and dispassionately and not let emotion enter into the decision-making process. Both the prosecution and the accused are entitled to my verdict free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill-will. I must then deliver my verdict according to the evidence. 11 The prosecution bears the onus of always proving the guilt of the accused. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit the offences as charged. 12 The standard of proof of the prosecution case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused cannot be found guilty of an offence unless the evidence, which I accept, satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. 13 The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the offences unless and until the evidence I accept satisfies me that each and every element of the charges has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 14 I am required to determine whether each of the witnesses called are credible, truthful and reliable, that is, whether I can rely on the evidence that the witness gives me and so find the facts about which the witness has given evidence. I can -- 7 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 6 accept part of a witness’ evidence and reject part of that evidence or accept or reject it all. I am to determine the facts in accordance with the evidence, considered logically and rationally, without acting capriciously or irrationally but I may use my commonsense, experiences and wisdom in assessing the evidence. 15 There is no rule of law or practice that states that an adverse finding on any aspect of the evidence of a witness means that the whole of that witness’ evidence must be rejected. It does not necessarily follow, that a finding that a witness has lied about a matter means that he or she is lying about all matters central to the determination of the matter. A finding, however, that a witness has lied about a matter may affect the degree of satisfaction of the existence (or otherwise) of a fact in issue to which the witness’ evidence was directed. What is significant is not the mere fact of untruthfulness, but its relevance to the issues in dispute. 16 I am required to consider all the evidence and assess the capacity of the individual items of evidence to circumstantially increase (or decrease) the probability of material facts. The rational resolution of an issue involving the credibility and reliability of a witness requires every item of evidence in the case to be judged and weighed. No single item of evidence can have its proper significance considered if it is assessed disengaged from the circumstances of time, place and behaviour supplied by all the evidence. If evidence supports or is consistent with a witness’ evidence, I must take it into account before a conclusion is reached on that witness’ credibility and reliability as the evidence may tend to make it more likely that the asserted fact is true. That is, assessing the credibility and reliability of a witness requires reference to, and analysis of, any evidence independent of the parties which is apt to cast light on the probabilities of the situation. 17 If, after considering all the evidence and the submissions of both parties, I was to accept the accused’s account of events as being reasonably possible, the prosecution will have failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, even if I were to reject part or all of the accused’s account, that would not be sufficient to establish guilt. In such a case, I would ignore and put to one side the rejected aspects of the accused’s evidence. The onus to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt always remains with the prosecution. I might reject the accused’s account and also not be satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution proves the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a case, the accused would be entitled to a verdict of not guilty. Circumstantial evidence 18 The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to prove its case against the accused. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which, if accepted, tends to prove a fact from which the existence of a fact in issue may be inferred. 19 The force of circumstantial evidence lies in the combined strength of items of evidence pointing in the same direction. That is, whilst none of the many pieces of evidence by themselves may be determinative of an issue, their convergence -- 8 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 7 becomes increasingly persuasive.3 To put that another way, the strength of circumstantial evidence lies in its ability to show that “according to the common course of human affairs, the degree of probability that the occurrence of the facts proved would be accompanied by the occurrence of the fact to be proved is so high that the contrary cannot reasonably be supposed”.4 20 Often the circumstances constituting circumstantial evidence can be supplemented by direct evidence but that is not necessary. The facts that go to make up a circumstantial case, unless they are an indispensable intermediate step in the reasoning process towards an inference of guilt, are not required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the elements of the offence that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. 21 In a case relying on circumstantial evidence, to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of an accused, it is necessary not only that guilt should be a rational inference, but that it should be the only rational inference that the circumstances permit. 22 However, to be reasonable, an inference must rest upon something more than mere conjecture. It is necessary to weigh and consider the totality of the evidence and, in doing so, I ought not stretch credulity or engage in tortuous reasoning in order to explain away each and every individual circumstance as being consistent with innocence. A circumstantial case is not to be considered piecemeal. Often in a circumstantial case there will be evidence of matters which, looked at in isolation from other evidence, would yield an inference compatible with the innocence of the accused. 23 However, it is of critical importance to remember that in considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence. 24 While a circumstantial case is not to be considered piecemeal, it is important I bear in mind any inferences, explanations, and submissions put forward by the accused in relation to individual items of circumstantial evidence. To put that another way, resolution of the case depends upon assessment of all the evidence and that includes, of course, not just inferences in favour of the prosecution but inferences, explanations, and submissions put forward on behalf of the accused. Motive 25 The prosecution allege that the accused had a motive to commit the offences. Motive is a piece of circumstantial evidence which depends upon the drawing of inferences. The existence of a motive or possible motive of an accused cannot of itself prove that they committed the offence. Motive is simply one item of 3 Dent v The King [2024] SASCA 12 at [34] (Livesey P and Lovell JA, Nicholson AJA agreeing). 4 Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367 at 375. -- 9 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 8 evidence in a case that may tend to show that a person who committed an act acted with a particular intention. Proven motive is a matter which may support or assist in drawing an inference of intention; it may also be relevant to whether an accused committed the offence charged. As Lord Atkinson stated in R v Ball:5 Evidence of motive necessarily goes to prove the fact of the homicide by the accused ... inasmuch as it is more probable that men are killed by those who have some motive for killing them than by those who have not. 26 Evidence of motive may be strong or it may be weak. However, motive is not an element of the offence, and it is not necessary as a matter of law for the prosecution to prove that an accused had any particular motive. Even if motive can be proved as part of a circumstantial case, that will not, of itself, be sufficient to establish guilt of the offence. It can assist, however, in a significant way.6 27 An ingredient of the crime charged is the intention of the accused. It is not, of course, possible to see into another person’s mind. The intention with which the accused did something may however be inferred from his actions and words at the time. 28 A person’s state of mind is a fact like any other fact and is usually inferred from what an accused says and/or does. I must rely on inferences when assessing whether the accused formed the requisite intent.7 To enable me to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the intent of the accused, it is necessary not only that his state of mind should be a rational inference, but that it should be “the only rational inference that the circumstances would enable them to draw”.8 Discreditable conduct evidence 29 Some aspects of the evidence adduced by both parties could be seen as putting the accused in a bad light. That is, the evidence is to be characterised as discreditable, as that term is deployed in s 34P of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) (“Evidence Act”). I must decide the case only on the evidence adduced at trial and must rely on that evidence only for the permissible uses for which it was admissible in accordance with the requirements of s 34P of the Evidence Act. 30 The prosecution alleged that the accused changed the number plate on his motorbike. The change in the number plate was relevant to various speed camera photographs taken on 25 April 2023. The accused conceded that he had done so and said he did so as he “rides silly” and did not want to get detected by speed cameras.9 The accused admitted acting dishonestly in doing so. The accused also 5 [1911] AC 47 at 68. 6 R v Georgiev [2001] VSCA 18; (2001) 119 A Crim R 363 at [78] (Ormiston JA); Dent v The King [2024] SASCA 12 at [130] (Livesey P and Lovell JA, Nicholson AJA agreeing). 7 Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619. 8 Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 at 252 (Menzies J). 9 The accused who filled his motorbike with petrol and rode off without paying could not be traced because of the false number plate. -- 10 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 9 used his false number plate to obtain fuel for his motorbike and not pay for it. That is, he would “drive off” knowing his registration plate could not be traced. 31 There was also evidence of the accused behaving aggressively towards the police at various times on 24 April 2023 while at 18 Small Crescent. While what occurred on that day is relevant to the issue of motive, his behaviour at various times towards the police could be described as discreditable conduct. 32 The accused also became involved in a physical altercation with Neil. Irrespective of how the fight started, the conduct of the accused amounted to discreditable conduct. 33 There was evidence that both the accused and Beau were users of cannabis and may have from time to time supplied it to each other. There was evidence of text messages between the accused and Beau on this topic. It was background evidence only and had no particular relevance to any of the issues at trial. 34 The accused cross-examined Beau as to his previous criminal history. Part of that cross-examination elicited, and deliberately so, that Beau had committed a serious criminal trespass offence in 2008 in company with the accused. Beau had given evidence at a disputed fact hearing in relation to the offending and gave false evidence about who he committed the offence with. That is, he lied in evidence to protect his brother. The purpose of the cross-examination was said to provide a motive for Beau to lie in this case. However, it did introduce evidence demonstrating that the accused engaged in discreditable conduct. 35 Section 34P of the Evidence Act relevantly states: (1) In the trial of a charge of an offence, evidence tending to suggest that a defendant has engaged in discreditable conduct, whether or not constituting an offence, other than conduct constituting the offence (discreditable conduct evidence)— (a) cannot be used to suggest that the defendant is more likely to have committed the offence because he or she has engaged in discreditable conduct; and (b) is inadmissible for that purpose (impermissible use); and (c) subject to subsection (2), is inadmissible for any other purpose. (2) Discreditable conduct evidence may be admitted for a use (the permissible use) other than the impermissible use if, and only if— (a) the judge is satisfied that the probative value of the evidence admitted for a permissible use outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant; and (b) in the case of evidence admitted for a permissible use that relies on a particular propensity or disposition of the defendant as circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue—the evidence has strong probative value having regard to the particular issue or issues arising at trial. -- 11 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 10 (3) In the determination of the question in subsection (2)(a), the judge must have regard to whether the permissible use 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. 36 In each matter just referred to, I am satisfied that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect and that the impermissible use of the evidence as defined in s 34P(1) can be kept separate from any permissible use. 37 I have kept permissible and impermissible uses separate during my considerations. I have not engaged in any form of propensity reasoning or used any evidence concerning criminal or otherwise discreditable conduct on the part of the accused by way of bad character or so-called bad person reasoning. Fact finding 38 The honesty, credibility and reliability of various witnesses were central issues in the case. 39 As the trial Judge, I can have regard to the demeanour of a witness but I must bear in mind that conclusions as to the honesty, credibility and reliability of a witness should, as far as possible, be determined based on contemporary materials, objectively established facts and the apparent logic of events. Credibility is a larger concept than demeanour, and demeanour should not be overemphasised in considering credibility.10 40 I bear in mind when analysing the evidence that the case against the accused is largely circumstantial in nature. 41 When assessing the honesty, credibility and reliability of all witnesses including the accused I must have regard to all the evidence. That is, the evidence of any witness is not to be looked at in isolation but only having regard to all the evidence in the case. 42 In relation to the question of fact finding, the Court in Hutchinson v Van Den Berg observed:11 A sound conclusion on the credibility and reliability of a witness’s testimonial account of disputed events cannot be made on the testimony of that witness alone and in isolation. It is in the very nature of the fact-finding exercise that the competing testimonial accounts must be evaluated alongside each other and tested against the accepted circumstantial evidence found at the place(s) in question and on the participants. A judge is required to consider all the evidence and assess the capacity of the individual items of evidence to circumstantially increase (or decrease) the probability of material facts. The rational resolution of an issue involving the credibility and reliability of a witness requires every item of evidence in the case to be judged and weighed. No single item of evidence can have its proper significance considered if it is assessed disengaged 10 Hutchinson v Van Den Berg [2024] SASCA 117 at [39] (Kourakis CJ, Lovell and Doyle JJA). 11 [2024] SASCA 117 at [44]-[46] (Kourakis CJ, Lovell and Doyle JJA). -- 12 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 11 from the circumstances of time, place and behaviour supplied by all the evidence. If evidence supports or is consistent with a witness’s evidence, the judge must take it into account before a conclusion is reached on that witnesses’ credibility and reliability as the evidence may tend to make it more likely that the asserted fact is true. That is, assessing the credibility and reliability of a witness requires reference to, and analysis of, any evidence independent of the parties which is apt to cast light on the probabilities of the situation. A judge’s fact-finding exercise should not be approached in a segmented way. This is not to say that a judge must accept supportive or consistent evidence as true or probable. The supportive or consistent evidence may be impeached. But unless impeached, it should not be ignored. Importantly, in the process of reasoning, a judge must not ignore the supportive evidence in deciding whether the evidence of a witness was true or probable and then use that conclusion to impeach the supportive or consistent evidence. (Footnotes omitted) 43 While the Court was dealing with the question of fact finding in a civil case, the principles are equally applicable to fact finding in a criminal case. Expert evidence direction 44 A properly qualified expert can give evidence of their opinion on matters within their expertise. I must assess the evidence of an expert witness in the same way as any other witness. However, there are other factors to also consider such as whether they were properly qualified and whether they appeared impartial or biased. 45 As part of their evidence, experts were asked to give their opinion based on assuming certain facts. If I find that the facts were different to those assumed by the expert, then their opinion will be of limited value or no value. 46 While I can reject the evidence of an expert, in this case none of the expert evidence was disputed. In those circumstances I should only reject the evidence from the experts if there is a reason to doubt the evidence. In this matter there was no reason for me to reject any of the expert evidence. Accused’s evidence 47 The accused chose to give evidence. He was not required to give evidence and could have remained silent, leaving me to decide whether the prosecution proved its case. I will assess his evidence in the same way as any other witness. I will not treat his evidence as deserving less weight simply because he is the accused. 48 In this matter the accused participated in a formal record of interview with the police. The interview was led as part of the prosecution evidence. The accused’s statement to the police contains both some admissions as to his interactions with Toni and Neil and also parts which seek to exonerate or excuse him. I must consider the whole of the record of interview. When giving evidence he was cross-examined on statements made in his interview. -- 13 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 12 Brief overview of the issues at trial 49 The issue at trial was the identity of the alleged attacker. In seeking to prove it was the accused who attacked Toni and Neil, the prosecution relied on the fact that the accused had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime and that he was in possession of items stolen from their premises during the attack. 50 Motive was alleged to arise from the way the accused behaved towards Toni and Neil on 24 April 2023 and the dispute over his father’s property. Opportunity was said to be established by proof of the accused’s movements around 8:30 pm on 25 April 2023. 51 The prosecution adduced CCTV footage establishing that the accused left his partner’s, Gioanna Edwards (“Ms Edwards”), residence of 17 Ferguson Street, Salisbury North on his motorbike at around 8:15 pm on 25 April 2023. The accused was living at Ms Edwards’ premises at the time of the attack. Neighbours of Toni and Neil heard a loud motorbike leaving the vicinity of 18 Small Crescent around 8:30 pm – 8:35 pm. Analysis of the accused’s telephone records established that the accused’s mobile phone had disconnected from the network between 8:17 pm and 8:42 pm. The attack occurred at approximately 8:30 pm. The prosecution alleged that the accused disconnected his phone before attacking Toni and Neil. 52 Toni’s mobile phone was stolen during the attack. It had been left on. Analysis of Toni’s telephone records established that it moved from 18 Small Crescent at around 8:36 pm. At 8:42 pm, Toni’s phone connected to a base station consistent with the area where the accused’s phone reconnected with the network. Analysis of Toni’s telephone records and those of the accused and Ms Edwards established that all three of those phones were in the vicinity of the Black Hill Conservation Park (“the Park”) around 10:20 pm that evening. 53 On 23 May 2023, the police received information that there may be a burn site in the Park associated with the attack on Neil. On 30 May 2023, Detective Brevet Sergeant McInerney was hiking in the Park when he located a burn site a short distance along the Amber Gully Trail. Sergeant Gresch from the Forensic Response Section attended at the burn site shortly after its discovery and located a number of burnt items within it; including a small axe, a Samsung mobile phone and a shoe tread. The small axe was tendered by the prosecution.12 54 It was not disputed that the burn site was a result of the accused travelling with Ms Edwards on the night of the attack and a fire being started in which items were purposefully burnt. The accused asserts that he set fire to a bag of items Beau had handed to him earlier that evening. The bag contained items stolen from 18 Small Crescent. The items had been burnt but not before photographs of 12 Exhibit P46. -- 14 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 13 identification cards stolen from Toni and Neil’s premises on 25 April 2023 had been taken on Ms Edwards’ mobile phone. 55 The prosecution submitted that a connection can be drawn between the items located within the burn site, and the crimes that were committed at 18 Small Crescent, having regard to: • the movement of Toni’s phone south very soon after 8:36 pm on 25 April 2023, and therefore within moments of the time of the attack; • the correspondence in the locations of the phones of the accused and Toni, from 8:42 pm when the accused’s phone reconnected to the network, to the eventual resting place of the phone of Toni, in a coverage area encompassing the Park at about 10:15 pm; • componentry of the burnt phone being branded Samsung, and Toni’s phone being a Samsung; • the burnt axe being the type of weapon that could have caused the injuries to both Toni and Neil; • the burnt shoe tread being indicative of clothing being burnt, and the blood at the scene, giving rise to the potential that the attacker would be, at the very least, concerned about having the blood of either Toni or Neil on them; and • the burn site when located by police a little over a month after the crimes, had some vegetation re-growth indicating that some time had passed since the fire. 56 The prosecution called Beau, the accused’s brother, who denied being involved in the offending. Beau, although he had not attended 18 Small Crescent on 24 April 2023, also had a motive given the dispute over Mr Wescott’s property. Analysis of Beau’s telephone records were consistent with his evidence regarding his movements the evening of the attack. Beau stated that he was at his house with his then girlfriend, Tayla Nickles-Caston (“Ms Nickles-Caston”), that evening. That is, he did not leave his house to go to 18 Small Crescent. Ms Nickles-Caston gave evidence supporting Beau’s evidence. 57 The accused was arrested on 26 April 2023 and a formal interview conducted. The accused denied any knowledge of the attack. He denied owning a motorbike. 58 The prosecution also adduced evidence of many recorded telephone conversations between the accused and Ms Edwards. The calls were made from prison after the accused was arrested. Users of the prison call system are advised at the beginning of the call that the calls are being recorded. 59 The calls record the accused and Ms Edwards discussing the accused’s defence of alibi. The prosecution allege that the calls were intentionally used by -- 15 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 14 the accused and Ms Edwards to provide false information to the police. The prosecution alleged that over a period of approximately four months the accused’s defence changed depending on what information the accused learnt from the police. The prosecution submitted that the accused told numerous lies during these calls. 60 In some of the calls, the accused and Ms Edwards discuss the provision of the accused’s “Google Timeline” obtained from his use of the application, Google Maps. The Google Timeline was produced to the police at the request of the accused but was demonstrated by other evidence to be false. In cross-examination, the accused agreed that the Google Timeline provided to the police was inaccurate but denied altering the Google Timeline or directing anyone else to alter the Google Timeline on his behalf. 61 The accused gave evidence. He denied involvement in the attack on Toni and Neil and said that Beau contacted him and asked him to meet him shortly after 8:30 pm on 25 April 2023. Beau gave the accused directions where to meet him. On the accused’s evidence Beau was the person who attacked Toni and Neil. 62 The accused followed those directions and met Beau on the road adjacent to the old Holden factory. Beau gave him items stolen from Toni and Neil’s premises. He had no knowledge prior to this meeting that Beau had intended to attack Toni and Neil. He said he took the items from Beau and later burnt them in the Park. The accused’s case is that although he was in possession of items stolen during the attack his only involvement was to “get rid of” these items given to him by Beau. 63 During his video recorded interview with the police the accused did not mention Beau’s alleged involvement. The accused gave evidence that he told Brevet Sergeant Coulthard, the interviewing officer, off camera, that Beau was involved. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard denied that conversation took place. 64 The recorded prison conversations in general terms involved discussions with Ms Edwards of the accused’s movements on the evening of 25 April 2023. The accused did not mention his involvement with Beau that evening although he did suggest that Beau was a potential suspect due to some text messages Beau had sent. The accused admitted lying in the prison calls but said that he was simply trying to distance himself from anything to do with meeting Beau and the fact that he destroyed evidence. 65 The accused when giving evidence admitted much of the prosecution evidence regarding his movements on the evening of 25 April 2025. The prosecution case is that the accused lied when giving his evidence of meeting Beau that evening and has constructed a meeting with Beau in an attempt to explain what otherwise is compelling evidence of his guilt. The prosecution thus rely upon all the evidence of the accused’s movements on the evening of 25 April 2023 as -- 16 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 15 circumstantial evidence of his guilt. His guilt was the only rational inference the evidence permitted. 66 The accused’s defence was that I could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that he obtained the solen items from Beau. That is, I could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that Beau committed the offences. Structure of the reasons 67 The evidence relating to the events fit into various particular stages. There is however some overlap. 68 I will deal first with the events occurring, both morning and afternoon, at 18 Small Crescent after the discovery of Mr Wescott’s body on 24 April 2023. This will involve an analysis of the accused’s interactions with Toni and Neil as well as his interactions with the members of the police force who attended at 18 Small Crescent. I will then deal with the events of 25 April 2023, including Toni and Neil’s evidence of their recollection of the events on the day of the attack. I will also deal with the medical and crime scene evidence. 69 Secondly, I will deal with the events, witnessed by neighbours, at 18 Small Crescent at around 8:30 pm on 25 April 2023. 70 Thirdly, I consider Dr Matthew Sorell’s (“Dr Sorell”) evidence on the telecommunications system. Dr Sorell analysed the telephone records and gave evidence as to the likely movements of the mobile phones of the accused, Beau, Ms Nickles-Caston, Toni and Ms Edwards. I deal with Dr Sorell’s specific opinions of his review of the various telephone records throughout my reasons. 71 Fourthly, I deal with the evidence of witnesses who observed the accused and Ms Edwards’ movements on the afternoon and evening of the attack. 72 Fifthly, I will deal with Beau’s evidence. As mentioned earlier the accused alleged that Beau committed the offending. Beau gave evidence that he was home with his then girlfriend, Ms Nickles-Caston, at the time of the attack. His evidence was supported by Ms Nickles-Caston and his ex-partner, Niki Taylor (“Ms Taylor”). 73 I will consider the evidence of the interactions between the accused and his brother, Beau, prior to the evening of 25 April 2023. I will deal with Beau’s evidence, and this will necessitate an analysis of some of Dr Sorell’s evidence relating to interpretation of various telephone records. 74 Sixthly, I will deal with the balance of the prosecution evidence and this will involve consideration of the accused’s evidence. I will consider the forensic evidence of items seized by police from the accused’s premises following his arrest. It became apparent during the trial that much, but not all, of the prosecution evidence as to the accused’s movements was not disputed. The accused admitted -- 17 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 16 to telling many lies both to the police and also in the recorded prison calls with Ms Edwards. However, he maintained his innocence and blamed Beau for the attack. Assessment of the accused’s evidence also involves analysis of Dr Sorell’s evidence. 75 Relevant to an assessment of the credibility and reliability of the accused’s evidence is the content of various telephone calls the accused made to his partner Ms Edwards from prison after his arrest. These calls were recorded on the prison ARUNTA system. 76 Finally, I will deal with the main issue at trial, that is, whether a meeting occurred on 25 April 2023 between Beau and the accused where Beau handed the accused items stolen from 18 Small Crescent. I will also deal in general terms with the accused’s evidence and submissions. Events occurring on the morning of 24 April 2023 77 Much of what occurred on the morning of 24 April 2023 was not disputed. Some of the events were captured on video by the various police officers’ body-worn video cameras. It is unnecessary for me to discuss the evidence in detail. 78 Mr Wescott had lived in the caravan parked in the driveway of 18 Small Crescent for about four and a half years. He paid Toni and Neil board to help pay for electricity. Mr Wescott also drove a black Ford Territory vehicle. The evidence as to ownership of the caravan and vehicle was conflicting and unclear. The vehicle Mr Wescott drove was in Neil’s name but Neil said that Mr Wescott had paid for it. Toni said that she believed that on Mr Wescott’s death she would get the car and the caravan. 79 It is clear that Mr Wescott owned the caravan and the personal property contained within it. I am unable to determine who owned the car as at April 2023 and it is unnecessary for me to do so. What was to happen to the property on the death of Mr Wescott was disputed, particularly the caravan. 80 Neil said that he took Toni to work around 8:30 am on 24 April 2023. During the morning, Mr Wescott’s employer contacted Toni and inquired about Mr Wescott as he had not arrived at work. Toni telephoned Neil and asked him to check on Mr Wescott. Neil went to the caravan but found that it was secured shut by a rope. Neil sought assistance from his neighbour, Tony Randall (“Mr Randall”), and they broke into the caravan by cutting the rope. On entering the caravan Neil saw the body of Mr Wescott on the floor. Mr Randall called the police and the ambulance service. Neil rang Toni, advised her of what he had discovered and then went to collect her from work. 81 Before Toni and Neil returned, the police arrived at 18 Small Crescent. -- 18 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 17 82 Senior Constable Towey, accompanied by Probationary Constable Blackman and Cadet Ndkumwenayo, were the first police officers to arrive at 18 Small Crescent. They arrived at about 10:15 am. Senior Constable Towey and Probationary Constable Blackman operated their body-worn video cameras. A selection of the video taken that morning was tendered. 83 A paramedic was present at the scene and advised Senior Constable Towey that Mr Wescott was dead. Having accessed the caravan, Senior Constable Towey observed items consistent with illicit drug use. Suspecting a possible drug overdose, Senior Constable Towey advised her supervisor Brevet Sergeant Rowe and the Criminal Investigations Branch (“CIB”) of her observations. 84 The accused, accompanied by his partner Ms Edwards, and his mother, Kerry Stapleton (“Ms Stapleton”), arrived at 18 Small Crescent. Senior Constable Towey permitted the accused to enter the caravan. Having observed the body of his father, the accused took out his camera as if to take photographs but was stopped by Senior Constable Towey. The accused was rude to Senior Constable Towey. 85 The accused gave evidence at trial that he entered the house and looked in every bedroom. The accused was suspicious about how his father had died. The accused did not appear to take anything from the house. Having left the house, the accused examined the Ford Territory parked in the driveway. Again, the accused did not take anything from the car. Probationary Constable Blackman spoke with the accused at the front of the property where the accused asked about leaving a note inside the house for the occupant to give the accused a call. There were discussions with the accused about the investigation into his father’s death, next of kin, and the property. 86 Around this time, Brevet Sergeant Rowe, Senior Constable Pollard, Brevet Sergeant Sherratt and Detective Brevet Sergeant Dimopoulos arrived at 18 Small Crescent. 87 Neil, having collected Toni from her work, arrived back at 18 Small Crescent. The accused immediately approached Neil and discussed the topic of his father’s property. Neil asserted that the car belonged to Toni but was in his name. An argument developed between Neil and the accused and became heated leading to Detective Dimopoulos intervening. Both the accused and Neil demonstrated hostility towards each other. On the evidence I am unable to determine how the argument began. Detective Dimopoulos told the accused he was interrupting a police investigation, he asked the accused “to step away” from Neil and the police would speak to him later. The accused’s response was to call Detective Dimopoulos a “cunt”. He pulled his shirt off over his head and in effect threatened Detective Dimopoulos. -- 19 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 18 88 Detective Dimopoulos and the accused continued to argue and eventually Ms Edwards intervened and managed to get the accused into the front seat of their car. 89 Ms Edwards and the accused left 18 Small Crescent in their car but not before the accused yelled at Neil saying, “It’s not your car”. Brevet Sergeant Rowe intervened telling the accused that they, the police, would sort it. The accused responded, “if my dad’s stuff goes, I will come and deal with it alright?” … “Remember that”. 90 I had the advantage of watching a compilation of videos taken by the police with their body-worn video cameras. I was not shown all the footage; it was not necessary for me to do so. 91 However, from the videos, I was able to see how the accused behaved during the morning. 92 All police officers who gave evidence about what occurred that morning did so in a straight-forward, credible and reliable manner. In particular, Senior Constable Towey and Probationary Constable Blackman treated the accused in a courteous and professional manner. They were both aware that the accused was likely to be upset at the death of his father and treated him accordingly. Certainly, Senior Constable Towey did not deserve to be spoken to so rudely by the accused. 93 I also find that Detective Dimopoulos conducted himself courteously and professionally before the accused called him a “cunt”. The accused in his evidence asserted that Detective Dimopoulos initially behaved in an arrogant and insensitive way towards him. Unsurprisingly, Detective Dimopoulos reacted forcefully to the accused’s abuse but remained professional in his approach. 94 The accused in his evidence did not dispute much of what the witnesses said occurred on the morning of 24 April 2023. The accused’s evidence about his discussions with the police, not recorded on any video footage, was inconsistent. There was a tension between the accused wanting information and the police having to protect what was potentially a crime scene. The accused alleged that the police acted, in effect, in a manner that was disrespectful to him causing him to act aggressively. I reject that evidence. However, I accept, as his counsel, Mr Moen, submitted, that the accused’s behaviour on this morning must be seen in the context of him learning of the death of his father, attending the scene including observing his father’s body and becoming aware that illicit drugs likely had a role to play in his death. I accept that the accused found himself in a stressful situation and was therefore prone to misinterpret what was occurring. 95 The evidence of the accused’s behaviour towards the police, particularly Detective Dimopoulos, amounts to discreditable conduct. The accused’s evidence about how the police dealt with him that morning was inconsistent. I find that he -- 20 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 19 lost his temper with the police that morning and did so largely because he was emotional because of his father’s death. 96 I disregard any submission that the evidence discloses that the accused has a propensity to act aggressively. I specifically direct myself to not reason that the evidence demonstrates that the accused is a person of bad character. 97 That said, the evidence establishes that the accused was at the very least concerned that the caravan and its contents, and the vehicle, may be dealt with by Toni and/or Neil contrary to his and his family’s wishes and indeed dealt with to their detriment. The accused was suspicious as to how his father had died and what role, if any, Toni and Neil had played in relation to illicit drugs. Both matters are relevant to the issue of motive. 98 Events that occurred later that afternoon confirmed that the accused had concern about the property and whether Toni and Neil had any right to ownership of the property particularly the caravan. Events occurring on the afternoon of 24 April 2023 99 It was common ground that the accused and Ms Edwards returned to 18 Small Crescent late in the afternoon of 24 April 2023. The accused’s intention was to access the caravan. 100 The accused in evidence stated that after he arrived he spoke to Toni and asked for the keys to the caravan. Toni was standing in the driveway of 18 Small Crescent behind Mr Wescott’s vehicle. Toni walked inside the house. He spoke to Neil who was standing on the veranda and introduced himself again. Neil did not say much. Toni came back out of the house and walked towards the caravan. The accused asked for the keys, but she did not hand them over; he repeated the request. The accused said he spoke in a normal voice. He noticed the keys were on a lanyard so he grabbed the lanyard. Some, but not all, of the keys stayed on the lanyard and Toni threw some keys towards the front door of the house; she then ran to the neighbour’s house. 101 As the accused went to pick some of the keys off the ground Neil grabbed him in a bear hug. A struggle occurred and Neil ended up falling backwards from the veranda into the garden. The accused went to the caravan but couldn’t unlock the padlock. Toni said that after the police had left on the first occasion, Neil secured the caravan. Neil came up and grabbed the back of his shirt and the accused punched him. He said it was not a hard blow. Neil stumbled backwards. 102 The accused went to his car and grabbed a hammer and returned to the caravan. Having forced the door open using the hammer he entered the caravan. The accused said he took some items from the caravan including paperwork which he believed may have been relevant to ownership of his father’s car and caravan. -- 21 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 20 103 The accused said that he put the documents in a zip lock bag. He also took some keys attacked to a lanyard; he thought they may have been a spare set of keys to the caravan. 104 The prosecution called numerous witnesses who gave evidence about what occurred after the accused arrived at the premises. Witnesses to the events were neighbours of Toni and Neil: Mr Randall, Simon Lewis (“Mr Lewis”), Kailem Dahmes (“Mr Dahmes”), Olivia Hayford (“Ms Hayford”) and Allesha Minnis-Haenen (“Ms Minnis-Haenen”). I find that all the witnesses who gave evidence for the prosecution were honest and doing their best to assist the Court. Ms Minnis-Haenen found giving evidence an overwhelming experience. Although I consider she was an honest witness I am unable to rely on her evidence unless it was supported by other evidence. 105 Much of the evidence is inconsistent. Toni and Neil’s recollection was undoubtedly affected by the head injuries they suffered during the attack on 25 April 2023. The witnesses saw events from different locations and some did not have an uninterrupted view. Some witnesses viewed the events only after their attention had been drawn to an argument occurring between Neil and the accused. That is, they were not witnesses to the entire event. In those circumstances, inconsistencies are to be expected. 106 There was some common ground. The accused spoke to Toni and asked for the keys to the caravan. Toni went inside the house and obtained the keys. She said that when she returned the accused attempted to snatch the keys from her. The keyring broke, and keys fell to the ground. Toni said she picked them up and threw them inside. Neil came outside from the house and it was common ground that a loud argument between Neil and the accused occurred. Although the evidence is not entirely clear it is likely that Neil refused to let the accused into the caravan. I find that Neil and likely Toni told the accused that he would not get the caravan. Eventually Neil and the accused became involved in a scuffle during which punches were thrown. The witnesses were consistent in describing the accused as getting the better of the fight. Neil was aged 66 years of age at the time, and the accused around 33 years of age. Given the age discrepancy between the accused and Neil, that is unsurprising. 107 During the argument and scuffle, Toni went next door to Mr Randall’s house and asked him to ring the police which he did. On her return to 18 Small Crescent Toni saw the accused get a hammer from his car which he then used to forcefully open the caravan door. 108 In response to Mr Randall’s call, Sergeant Sipovac arrived at 18 Small Crescent at around 5:04 pm that afternoon. Sergeant Sipovac activated his body-worn video camera. Portions of the recorded video were tendered.13 13 Exhibit P23 is a USB containing body-worn footage of Sergeant Sipovac’s attendance at 18 Small Crescent on 24 April 2023. -- 22 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 21 When he arrived, Neil and the accused were still arguing. Sergeant Sipovac spoke to the accused who told him that he had attended the premises to “Look over everything in the caravan”. He said that the premises were not a “favourable kind of house”. 109 Other police officers attended including Senior Constable Sribar. She spoke to the accused who told her that he had attended to look at the caravan and work it out “peacefully”. The accused referred to the house as not “favourable” because of drugs. 110 Later in these reasons I make findings about the truthfulness, credibility and reliability of the accused’s evidence generally and in particular his evidence about his movements on 25 April 2023. Self-evidently, my findings about his evidence as to his movements on 25 April 2023 are relevant to my assessment of his evidence relating to his interactions with Toni and Neil on 24 April 2023. There are however differences between my assessment of the evidence of events occurring on 24 April as opposed to events occurring on 25 April. First, there is video footage taken by the police which is not disputed. Secondly, there are difficulties in relying on Toni and Neil’s evidence as to what occurred on 24 April. They did not intend to mislead me however the severity of the head injuries they both suffered on 25 April casts much doubt on their reliability. Witnesses to the altercation that took place on the afternoon of 24 April, while honest, gave evidence which was inconsistent. 111 It was common ground that the accused attended 18 Small Crescent, attempted to obtain keys to the caravan and eventually got into a physical fight with Neil. Generally, as discussed later in these reasons, I do not accept the accused’s evidence. However, given the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, I am unable to make findings as to how the arguments started or indeed who started the physical altercation. 112 Again, I accept Mr Moen’s submission that the accused’s behaviour should be seen in the context of him grieving over his father’s death. The same can be accepted in relation to Toni and Neil who no doubt were also affected by Mr Wescott’s death. 113 The accused’s arguments with Toni and Neil on 24 April 2023, and his involvement in a physical altercation with Neil may amount to discreditable conduct. 114 I specifically direct myself to disregard any suggestion that the evidence of what occurred on the afternoon of 24 April 2023 discloses that the accused has a propensity to act aggressively. I specifically direct myself to not reason that the evidence demonstrates that he is a person of bad character. 115 However, the accused’s attendance at 18 Small Crescent on the afternoon of 24 April 2023 does establish his interest in the property within the caravan and the -- 23 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 22 caravan itself. His arguments with Toni and Neil, and his physical altercation with Neil establish that he did not trust Toni and Neil to deal with the property appropriately or at least what he considered to be in an appropriate manner. I find that the prosecution has established that Toni and Neil, through what was said and how they acted, made clear to the accused that they did not believe he had a right to the caravan or the property in the caravan. So much was established by the police body-worn video footage. The accused believed he, or at least his family, had a right to the caravan and its contents. The caravan also had sentimental value. While the accused believed he had some proprietary right to the motor vehicle his focus was the caravan. 116 The evidence establishes that the accused was suspicious of Toni and Neil’s intentions in relation to the property. The accused in his evidence did not dispute that he was concerned about Toni and Neil’s intention in relation to his father’s property. 117 The police, during the time they were at 18 Small Crescent on the afternoon of 24 April 2023 asked Neil for some identification. He produced an identification card. The production of the identification card to the police, along with its return, is captured on the body-worn video footage.14 118 The relevance of the identification card being in Neil’s possession on the afternoon 24 April 2023 is that it establishes that the accused, as he later asserted, did not take it from the house earlier that morning. This evidence is relevant to an assessment of the accused’s evidence at trial. Events of 25 April 2023 119 There was no dispute that someone entered Toni and Neil’s house on 25 April 2023 and savagely attacked them. Both were struck in the head with a blunt instrument and both bled profusely. I deal with the specific injuries later in these reasons. Neither Toni nor Neil could remember much of what occurred on 25 April 2023 due to the consequences of their respective head injuries. 120 The prosecution alleged that Toni and Neil were attacked at around 8:30 pm on 25 April 2023. It was important that the prosecution establish the approximate time that the attack occurred. Toni’s evidence of 25 April 2023 121 Toni said that she stayed home on 25 April 2023. While Toni could not say whether the front door to 18 Small Crescent was unlocked their habit had been to leave it unlocked so Mr Wescott could access the house. Toni thought that it was 14 Exhibit P25, Clip 1, 17:13:17 and Clip 2, 17:15:14. Toni also provided her identification card to the police. The provision of Toni’s identification card, and its return, was also captured on body-worn video. See Exhibit P25, Clip 1, 17:13:58 and Clip 3, 17:17:04. -- 24 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 23 probably unlocked on this day. The porch light was also generally left on for the same reason although she could not say whether it was on that evening. 122 Toni remembered that at around 7:00 pm – 7:30 pm she was in her room messaging her friend on Facebook. Toni said Neil was also home that evening. She remembered going to the front door leaving her mobile phone by the bed. Toni remembered seeing red and yellow colours. Toni gave evidence that yellow was on top and red on the bottom. The colours were split, and she thought they were around face level. The prosecution submitted that Toni’s observations of red and yellow support the finding that the accused was the attacker. The accused’s motorcycle helmet was seized from 17 Ferguson Street on 26 April 2023. The helmet is predominantly yellow and red in colour.15 At the front of the helmet, the colours are split, with yellow being on the top of the helmet, and red being below the yellow. I deal with Toni’s evidence on this topic later in my reasons. 123 From that time, Toni’s memory was very poor. She remembered little until she woke up in hospital. 124 Toni’s phone was stolen by the person who attacked her. The phone remained on after the attack and its subsequent movement was established through analysis of various telephone records. Neil’s evidence of 25 April 2023 125 Neil has little recollection of the events of 25 April 2023. He remembered being home, but his next memory is waking up in hospital. Neil said that he generally kept his wallet in his trouser pocket. He kept a forklift driver’s licence, his Centrelink card as well as a traffic managers card in his wallet. Medical evidence Treatment at the scene 126 Harley Couzner (“Mr Couzner”) was a paramedic who, along with his colleague Mitchell Frances (“Mr Frances”), attended at 18 Small Crescent on 26 April 2023. They were dispatched to the scene at 3:58 pm and arrived at 4:04 pm. 127 On entering the house Mr Couzner observed a female, Toni, lying on her back face up on the bed and she appeared to be breathing and sleeping. The bed was cluttered and he observed syringes and needles scattered around. Mr Frances stayed with Toni. Mr Couzner called for back up to attend. There were many blood-stained areas in the house. 128 Mr Couzner followed a blood trail and then located a male, Neil, laying on his back face up in a bed. The area was cluttered and narrow; it was hard to get in. Neil was sleeping, and Mr Couzner woke him up. 15 Exhibit P57. -- 25 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 24 129 Neil seemed confused and could not tell Mr Couzner what was going on at that stage. Neil was fully clothed. Because the area was small Mr Couzner asked Neil to walk out into a living space and sit on a computer chair. Neil was able to walk out and sit on the chair. 130 Mr Couzner then treated Neil. Neil’s cognition was good and he could give time, place and person. 131 Mr Couzner noted a laceration to the middle of Neil’s forehead which was about two to three cm in circumference and about one cm deep. He also noted a laceration to the left and slightly back of Neil’s forehead that was about two to three cm long. He could not tell its depth. 132 There was a further laceration to the middle of Neil’s head on the back near the hairline of about one to two cm. 133 Mr Couzner thought the main injury was caused by blunt force trauma. 134 Neil was able to walk to a stretcher which was then placed in the ambulance. Neil was taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital (“the RAH”) arriving at about 4:51 pm. 135 Sophie Baldock, (“Ms Baldock”) a paramedic, also attended 18 Small Crescent arriving at 4:17 pm. She attended to Toni who was lying on a bed in the front left bedroom. She was conscious but drowsy. Toni was able to open her eyes, identify the day and place, and obey simple commands. 136 Toni was complaining of numbness in her head and some pain in her neck. She had two deep approximate four cm lacerations in length to both eyebrows/upper eyelids. Ms Baldock thought both cuts were deep. Both eyes were significantly swollen, and Toni was unable to open the left eye, could open the right eye slightly, and was saying there was slight blurry vision in her peripheries. Ms Baldock noted dried blood in her nose and mouth and a small laceration to the right side of her mouth. Toni complained of tenderness to her right shoulder, right lower quadrant of her abdomen and some tenderness in her left hand. 137 Toni was vomiting and complained of feeling nauseous. Ms Baldock administered nausea and pain-relieving medication. Toni was placed in an ambulance and taken to the RAH arriving at 5:24 pm. Neil’s assessment and treatment in hospital 138 Dr Ricardo Oliveria (“Dr Oliveria”), a specialist in rehabilitation medicine, gave evidence in relation to Neil’s initial assessment in hospital and his subsequent treatment. Dr Oliveria’s qualifications were not challenged. He currently works at a spinal rehabilitation ward at the REPAT at Daw Park. Dr Oliveria was one of Neil’s treating doctors at the REPAT. Dr Oliveria gave evidence of Neil’s -- 26 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 25 assessment and treatment at the RAH from his medical notes. Dr Oliveria was an excellent witness and I accept his evidence. 139 Neil was admitted to the RAH on 26 April 2023 and discharged on 5 May 2023. On 5 May 2023 Neil was admitted to REPAT where he remained as an inpatient for over three months. 140 Dr Oliveira gave evidence from medical notes that preceded his treatment of Neil including the initial ambulance retrieval; RAH notes comprising of emergency department, intensive care unit and neurosurgery team; ophthalmological reviews for eye issues; and plastic surgery reviews. 141 Neil had two lacerations to his forehead area. One laceration was described as having clearly visible bone fragments, pulsing cerebrospinal fluid and pulped brain. The injury penetrated deep enough to break the entirety of the skull and reach the membranes around the brain. The membrane around the brain has been ruptured and there was visible brain and fluid through the injury. The wound was deep given it penetrated through to the brain but Dr Oliveria could not give an exact measurement. The other laceration to the right of his forehead was not as severe as the first laceration discussed above. 142 There was a laceration to the occipital (back of the head) area. The injury was only mentioned in the paramedic notes, not from the emergency notes or admission notes subsequent to that. 143 Neil underwent CT scanning at the RAH. The CT scan of the skull revealed: • a comminuted depressed calvarial fracture of the skull on the right frontal area (forehead), meaning that there was a shattered fracture of the skill ie the skull was broken into multiple pieces; and • a subarachnoid haemorrhage, meaning there was bleeding around the brain. The brain cavity is normally sealed. Air was present in the cavity indicating a break of the seal. 144 The CT scan of the facial bones showed: • a complex comminuted fracture involving the right orbit. Multiple bones of the eye socket, the bones surrounding the eye, were broken in multiple pieces on the right side; • there was impingement of one of the muscles that moves the eye, from the bone fragments. The right eye had moved proptosis, (a projection outwards of the eye); and • bleeding inside the cavity. -- 27 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 26 145 Dr Oliveria said that a substantial force is required to break the skull, as it is a thicker bone than for example, a bone arm. While he could not say with certainty, he considered that a fracture of the skull would require more than being struck with a fist. Facial fractures, however, could be sustained with less force than a fracture of the skull. Being struck with a fist could cause facial fractures. 146 The application of significant external force is required to cause a comminuted fracture. 147 Dr Oliveria was asked about whether the injuries were caused by a sharp or blunt implement. He said that a sharp object would usually cause a laceration with a clean or straight edge, as opposed to a blunt injury which would leave an irregular shape. However, the notes were not sufficiently detailed for him to give an opinion on this issue. He was also unable to say whether there was one blow struck or more than one. 148 Dr Oliveira could not definitively say how many blows would be required to cause the two lacerations and comminuted fractures. He suspected that more than one impact would be required to shatter the skull and the eye socket but qualified his answer by saying that he was only looking at the report, not images, and that he was not a forensic medical practitioner. 149 In cross-examination, Dr Oliveira agreed that it was possible that if Neil was hit with force to the top of the head in the right frontal area, the facial injuries could have been caused by a subsequent fall. As to whether the injury to the top of the head could have been caused by a fall from a substantial height, he opined that this was not possible from a standing height due to the location of the wound, and that there would not be enough force to cause the injury. 150 Dr Oliveria was shown Exhibit P46, the small burnt axe discovered by the police within the burn site located in the Park in May 2023. He thought the axe could have caused the type of injuries to Neil’s skull, however he could not comment on whether the injuries were consistent with the blunt or sharp end of the axe being used. 151 Neil underwent several surgeries. On 27 April 2023, he required surgery to fix the fractures, and this required the use of plates. The surgery was also done to stop the internal bleeding. On 3 May 2023, Neil also underwent surgery in his C3 and C4 vertebrae – surgery was done to stabilise that area. He had a further surgery on 11 May 2023 due to the fracture of his right cheek to insert new plates. 152 Neil has post-traumatic amnesia. This is commonly seen after a traumatic brain injury in which someone can present as confused and have issues with forming new memories and retrieving previous memories. It is not surprising Neil cannot recall the attack or the 12 – 24 hours before the attack. 153 Dr Oliveira classified Neil’s traumatic brain injury as extremely severe. There were direct injuries to the left and left back of the brain. The injury to the -- 28 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 27 skull that went through to the brain is a life-threatening condition. Given the severity of the brain injury, Neil will have long term physical and cognitive impairments. Toni’s treatment and assessment in hospital 154 In April 2023, Dr Christopher Ovenden (“Dr Ovenden”) was a neurological registrar at the RAH. He was one of the doctors to treat Toni upon her admission. His qualifications were not challenged. He was an excellent witness, and I accept his evidence. 155 Dr Ovenden was on duty in the early hours of 27 April 2023, and attended to Toni at approximately 2:00 am. Toni had already received some treatment in the emergency department where she was stabilised. 156 Dr Ovenden treated a cut to Toni’s left forehead of around five to six cm in length which extended to her left eyebrow. The cut was deep enough to show an obvious fracture of the skull. There was also a small area of bleeding under her skull but outside her brain. The bleeding inside the skull was very likely associated with the trauma to the forehead. 157 The fracture to the frontal lobe was comminuted and extended up towards the middle of her head towards the top. A significant force would be required to cause this injury. Dr Ovenden considered that a rigid object would be required as opposed to a fist. The fracture was associated with the laceration to the left eye, and it was likely that whatever caused the laceration caused the fracture. 158 She also had a laceration to the right side of her face to the top of her right eyelid. The laceration was about 10 cm in length and it went through one of the muscles sitting around the eye with the small region of bone on view. That is, it extended through the muscle to the bone. 159 In cross-examination, Dr Ovenden was asked whether, if an item such as Exhibit P46, the small axe, was used to cause this laceration, he would have expected to see damage to the bone. Dr Ovenden said that it was possible that the axe was used in a glancing blow, depending on the force with which the axe was swung. If however it had been a direct blow to the right side with significant force, he would expect more damage to the bone underneath. 160 Toni also had a fracture to her right orbital wall (right eye socket). That was also a comminuted fracture. There was also a fracture to the frontal sinus area. These fractures would be likely a different injury, rather than the injury coming from the same blow as the skull injury. 161 Toni also had a two cm laceration to her chin on the right side, and two cm laceration to her upper lip. Both of Toni’s eyes were bruised and swollen. This may have been caused by the injury to the forehead or could have been the result of a direct blow to the area. In cross-examination, Dr Ovenden agreed that if Toni -- 29 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 28 was hit on the head and then fell, it was possible that the laceration to her right eyelid could have been caused by blunt-force trauma by hitting her head on an object such as a doorframe. 162 The injury to the left side of her face was consistent with significant amount of force. The injuries to the right side were consistent with a reasonable degree of force. They would have required a separate application of force. 163 Dr Ovenden said that Exhibit P46, the small axe, may have caused the injuries observed. He said that the sharp end of the axe is consistent with causing the injury to the left eyebrow. 164 The injuries were washed out and the wounds repaired. No plating or excision of the bone fragments was required. The main wound to the left eyebrow was surgically closed. 165 If there had not been medical intervention, the injuries were possibly life threatening. If the open wound to the forehead with the skull fracture had not been cleaned and closed, the main risk would be developing an uncontrollable infection. The bleeding inside the skull was also possibly life threatening, particularly given Toni was taking blood thinning medication. 166 Toni was discharged from the RAH on 8 May 2023. 167 Dr Ovenden had little to do with Toni’s post-surgery treatment. It is possible that Toni would experience ongoing issues with balance, memory and hearing, associated with the injuries, given the post-concussion style symptoms. It is also possible for there to be long term problems. Crime scene 168 Sergeant Logan in company with Brevet Sergeant Strange arrived at 18 Small Crescent at 7:30 pm on 26 April 2023 and conducted an examination of the scene. There was no dispute about their findings and/or observations. 169 There were no signs of forced entry and the rear yard was secure. This is consistent with Toni’s evidence that she was attacked at the front door. It is likely that the attacker entered and left by the front door. This is relevant to Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence which I discuss later. 170 Sergeant Logan was confronted with a scene which could only be described as bloody. There were many areas of blood staining in the lounge and bedrooms consistent with either Toni or Neil moving around the house after they were attacked. 171 Sergeant Logan was an experienced officer who had expertise in blood work analysis. Sergeant Logan’s expertise was not challenged. -- 30 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 29 172 Sergeant Logan took a number of photographs and examined, amongst other matters, various blood stains he located at the scene. Various photographs of the scene were tendered.16 Sergeant Logan was aware from other information that the two victims had moved around the house after the attack which limited his ability to assess the blood staining in the house. Transfer stains had little relevance given Toni and Neil’s movement. 173 Sergeant Logan’s evidence in relation to his observations of the blood stains had relevance on the issue of how many times Neil was struck. In the area described as ‘bedroom 3’,17 Sergeant Logan identified a group of individual blood-spatter stains located on a wardrobe door, which he marked ‘B2’. B2 consisted of over 100 stains with the top stain approximately 60 cm above the floor level. All stains were elliptical with a “tail” extending down from the stain. This indicated that the blood was travelling in a downwards direction at the time it struck the wardrobe door. The source of the blood must have been higher than the surface it stained. The shape of the blood stains indicated that a blow was struck to an already bloodied surface. This evidence supports the submission that Neil was struck on more than one occasion. 174 I have considered Sergeant Logan’s evidence. He was a good witness, and I accept his evidence. Given the amount of blood spread around the scene and the movement of both Toni and Neil around the house after the attack the evidence it is not possible to be precise about what actually occurred. 175 Sergeant Logan’s opinions however must be considered in the context of the medical evidence. I find that after considering all of the evidence Neil was likely struck to the head at least twice with a blunt weapon such as the axe, Exhibit P46. Toni was struck at least once with a blunt weapon such as the axe, Exhibit P46. While it is possible Toni may have been struck more than once with the axe, I am unable to exclude the possibility that the other injuries were caused by one or more fall. Occupants of 16 Small Crescent 176 Mr Dahmes, Ms Hayford and Ms Minnis-Haenen lived at 16 Small Crescent, Smithfield Plains, the house adjacent to Toni and Neil’s. I have already touched on their evidence in relation to what they observed occurred on the afternoon of 24 April 2023. 177 They also gave evidence about what they saw and heard on the evening of 25 April 2023 around the time of the attack on Toni and Neil. 178 To support their evidence the prosecution tendered video footage obtained from a doorbell camera located to the left of the front door frame of 16 Exhibit P1. 17 Neil’s bedroom was marked ‘Bed 3’ on Exhibit P2. -- 31 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 30 16 Small Crescent.18 Footage from the doorbell camera was transmitted to and captured on Mr Dahmes’ mobile phone. He provided the footage to the police. There were four recordings (clips). The prosecution alleged the clips established the following: Clip 1 commences at 8:35:17pm and lasts 22 seconds. It shows Ms Hayford holding the screen door open, and looking in the direction of 18 Small Crescent. She is visible for 15 seconds before appearing to return inside, the screen door closing behind her. At three seconds, a voice says something like ‘You heard that, did you, not?’ At 19 seconds, a moan can be heard. Clip 2 commences at 8:36:21pm and lasts 20 seconds. It shows Ms Minnis-Haenen, followed by Ms Hayford, exiting through the front screen door and walking onto the porch. They appear to look up and down Small Crescent, including in the direction of 18 Small Crescent. At the end of the clip, while they are both standing towards the edge of the porch, Ms Minnis-Haenen whispers a comment to Ms Hayford. It is inaudible, and Ms Minnis-Haenen could not recall what she had said. Clip 3 commences at 8:38:53pm and lasts 19 seconds. The porch light at 16 Small Crescent turns on at four seconds. There are no notable movements other than what appear to be insects. Clip 4 commences at 8:41:50pm and lasts 21 seconds. Ms Minnis-Haenen, followed by Ms Hayford and Mr Dahmes, walk through the open screen door onto the front porch. A faint sob can be heard at 12 seconds. Ms Minnis-Haenen and Ms Hayford walk onto the front lawn. Mr Dahmes walks onto the porch step. Ms Hayford and Mr Dahmes can be seen looking in the direction of 18 Small Crescent. (Footnotes omitted) 179 The accused accepted that the timing shown on the footage was accurate. The accused does not dispute the above prosecution summary. Ms Hayford 180 Ms Hayford said that on 25 April 2023 she arrived home at around 5:00 pm – 5:30 pm. At around 8:30 pm she was in the kitchen making dinner when she heard a muffled thud that she thought came from 18 Small Crescent. Ms Hayford agreed in cross-examination that the “thud” she heard may have been about 10 minutes or so earlier than 8:30 pm. She said it was around this time. At this time Mr Dahmes was in the spare room on his computer and Ms Minnis-Haenen was in the lounge room. Ms Hayford went into the lounge room and told Ms Minnis-Haenen what she had heard. She then heard a sound like a woman sobbing and so she went to the front door of the house and opened the screen door and looked outside. Ms Minnis-Haenen followed behind her. Ms Hayford said she could not see anything when she poked her head out of the screen door but heard someone sobbing. Clip 1 of the doorbell footage establishes that Ms Hayford opened the screen door at about 8:35:17 pm. 18 Exhibit P22. -- 32 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 31 181 Ms Hayford after hearing the “thud” immediately spoke to Ms Minnis-Haenen and then went to the front door. I infer that Ms Hayford heard the “thud” only a minute or so before opening the front door as captured in Clip 1. Although she agreed in cross-examination that the “thud” she heard may have been 10 minutes before 8:30 pm, that estimate of time cannot be correct. 182 It is impossible to be precise about timing. However, Clip 1 establishes that the “thud” Ms Hayford heard, followed by someone sobbing must have occurred a minute or so before 8:35:17 pm. 183 Ms Hayford returned inside and sat with Ms Minnis-Haenen. She heard a male yell “shush” and thought the voice came from the rear of 18 Small Crescent. Both Ms Hayford and Ms Minnis-Haenen then left the house using the front door and stood on the front porch. This action, seen in Clip 2, occurred at 8:36:21 pm. 184 Ms Hayford returned inside and spoke to Mr Dahmes. She then returned to the lounge room and at that time she heard a motorbike start up. The noise was loud and she thought it came from “the right” of 18 Small Crescent. The motorbike therefore must have left the area after 8:36:21 pm. 185 Ms Minnis-Haenen told Ms Hayford that she had seen someone running to a motorbike. No objection was taken to this evidence. It cannot be used to establish the truth of the proposition that Ms Minnis-Haenen saw a figure running. I deal with the use that can be made of this evidence when I deal with Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence. 186 Although she did not see a motorbike Ms Hayford thought it travelled in the opposite direction to 16 Small Crescent. That is, Ms Hayford thought the motorbike travelled past 22 Small Crescent, turning up Ayling Street heading towards Peachy Road. 187 Mr Dahmes, Ms Hayford and Ms Minnis-Haenen then went to the front porch. They discussed whether to go to 18 Small Crescent to investigate but decided not to. Clip 4 establishes that the three witnesses went to the front porch at 8:41:50 pm. 188 Ms Hayford returned inside with the others. She heard a female “sobbing” for a number of minutes and a male voice. She was unable to decipher what was said. 189 Ms Hayford was an honest and reliable witness. Her evidence was not significantly challenged. 190 I find that Ms Hayford responded to hearing a “thud” coming from 18 Small Crescent. This was followed by Ms Hayford hearing someone “sobbing”. Her evidence is consistent with the attack occurring on Toni before she first opened the front door of 16 Small Crescent, as shown in Clip 1 of the doorbell footage. -- 33 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 32 Mr Dahmes 191 Mr Dahmes was a credible and reliable witness. The accused did not challenge much of his evidence. I accept his evidence. 192 Mr Dahmes said he was at home at 16 Small Crescent around 8:30 pm. He was in a room playing computer games when Ms Minnis-Haenen spoke to him. As a result of what he was told he went straight to the front door and then out onto the front porch. Ms Hayford and Ms Minnis-Haenen went onto the front porch with him. 193 As he was walking outside and onto the front porch, Mr Dahmes heard the loud noise of a motorbike which appeared to be travelling away from his home. Although he did not see the motorbike, he thought it was close by due to the noise. He could still hear the noise of the motorbike after two to three minutes. 194 When outside on the porch he heard what the thought was a woman sobbing and that noise appeared to come from 18 Small Crescent. He considered investigating the noise but decided against it. 195 When Mr Dahmes returned inside he heard the sobbing noise for about another 15 minutes. He also heard a male voice say something like “stop it, be quiet”.19 196 Clip 4 establishes the time when Mr Dahmes walked onto the front porch. He confirmed in cross-examination that he heard the noise of a motorbike for a few seconds before he exited the house. Ms Minnis-Haenen 197 Ms Minnis-Haenen was not a good witness. She appeared to be overwhelmed by having to give evidence. Her evidence was punctuated by long pauses and on occasions questions went unanswered. Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence on the timing of events was inconsistent. I do not think Minnis-Haenen tried to mislead me but at various times she seemed to be unable to answer a simple question; she appeared to “freeze” when giving evidence. I have considered these matters when assessing her credibility and reliability. 198 Ms Minnis-Haenen said that she and Ms Hayford went out on the porch of 16 Small Crescent after hearing a “loud bang” and later a female scream. She said that she heard the screen door of 18 Small Crescent slam shut and then she saw a figure run from the door towards the front of the driveway. Ms Minnis-Haenen was unable to give any meaningful description of the figure she saw. She then heard a motorbike start up. 19 Given the evidence of the crime scene officer, Sergeant Logan, that both Toni and Neil moved around the house after the attacker left, Mr Dahmes likely heard Neil speaking to Toni. -- 34 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 33 199 It was only after she heard the motorbike start that she saw it and it travelled “very fast” to her left. She said the motorbike made a loud thumping noise and she could hear that noise after the motorbike was a few blocks away. 200 Under cross-examination, Ms Minnis-Haenen was taken to her initial police statement. In that statement she said that the events she described in evidence occurred at around 6:00 pm. At the time she made her police statement, she did not have access to the doorbell footage. In cross-examination, she was challenged about the timing of her observations. During cross-examination, there were times when the questions simply went unanswered despite being repeated. 201 Not only was Ms Minnis-Haenen challenged as to the timing of her observations she was also challenged about her evidence that she only saw the motorbike after the engine started and the motorbike drive away. In her earlier police statement, she had stated that she saw the motorbike parked at the end of the driveway of 18 Small Crescent; she was unable to give a sensible explanation for the difference. 202 The accused correctly submitted that Ms Minnis-Haenen did not describe the figure as wearing a helmet or in particular a helmet coloured yellow (green) and red. 203 The accused further submitted that I should not accept Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence that she saw a figure leave 18 Small Crescent and, by inference, start up a motorbike. The accused submitted that while the witnesses all heard a loud motorbike leaving the vicinity that does not mean that the rider of the motorbike had anything to do with the attack on Toni and Neil. He submitted that motorbikes may regularly be used in the area. 204 As mentioned, I do not consider that Ms Minnis-Haenen attempted to mislead me or give false evidence. I consider that she was overwhelmed by the task of giving evidence particularly where she was challenged. 205 However, Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence receives support from other evidence in the case. 206 First, the doorbell footage, in particular Clip 2, provides a sound basis for the timing of her observations despite her inconsistencies on this topic. 207 Secondly, Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence that she saw a figure running from 18 Small Crescent is supported by other evidence in the case in particular, the evidence of the movement of Toni’s phone, which I discuss in detail later in these reasons. 208 The evidence regarding the movement of Toni’s phone after the attack is not in dispute. Toni’s phone was taken by the attacker. The accused admitted that after the attack he came into possession of Toni’s phone. His defence was that Beau took the phone during the attack and gave him the phone shortly afterwards. -- 35 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 34 209 Briefly, Toni’s phone connected with the Davoren Park base station, 25-degree antenna, covering 18 Small Crescent, early in the afternoon on 25 April 2023. It then stopped connecting. However, it reconnected to the Davoren Park base station, 25-degree antenna, at 8:36:07 pm and by 8:36:46 pm connected to a different base station, namely the Davoren Park South base station, 347-degree antenna. This establishes that Toni’s phone began to move from 18 Small Crescent very shortly after 8:36:07 pm. 210 Clip 2 shows Ms Minnis-Haenen coming out onto the porch at 8:36:21 pm. The timing of the movement of Toni’s phone supports Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence that the attacker, whoever it was, left 18 Small Crescent around the time she made her observation. 211 While Ms Minnis-Haenen had difficulties when giving evidence I accept her evidence that she saw a figure leave the vicinity of 18 Small Crescent. A short time after seeing the figure, she heard a motorbike start up and leave the area. The timing of her sighting is supported by her statement to Ms Hayford in the lounge room that she had just seen someone leave the vicinity. I do not use that evidence for the truth of the statement. Clip 2 supports the timing of her observation. 212 Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence is also consistent with the attacker leaving on a motorbike. 213 I accept the evidence of Ms Hayford and Mr Dahmes. I accept Ms Minnis-Haenen’s evidence namely that she saw a figure leave the vicinity of 18 Small Crescent. 214 Their evidence establishes the time of the attack on Toni and Neil. It is not possible to be precise as to the timing of when Ms Hayford heard the “thud”, but I find that it was somewhere around 8:30 pm to 8:34 pm. Ms Giddings 215 Lulu Giddings (“Ms Giddings”) is the daughter of Ms Edwards. In March and April 2023, she and her four-month-old son resided with Ms Edwards and the accused at 17 Ferguson Street. Over her time residing there she witnessed the accused using his black motorbike which she described as having a “really loud” engine noise that could be heard a block or two away. 216 Ms Giddings gave evidence of the movements of Ms Edwards and the accused at 17 Ferguson Street during the day and evening of 25 April 2023. She said that during the day the accused appeared to be upset and agitated. 217 Ms Gidding said that in the evening she was at home with her four siblings, the accused and Ms Edwards. She and Ms Edwards argued which upset Ms Edwards such that Ms Edwards left the house. Ms Giddings thought Ms Edwards left the house at about 8:30 pm but CCTV footage and analysis of Ms Edwards’ telephone records establish that she left the house about 7:41 pm. -- 36 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 35 The accused, Ms Gidding said, left the house about an hour later and returned after two or three hours. However, CCTV footage establishes he left at 8:15:57 pm and returned at 9:04:09 pm before leaving again on a second occasion. Before he left on the first occasion she described the accused as pacing around the house. 218 Upon his return to the house on the first occasion the accused had a shower and told Ms Giddings that he had been trying to track Ms Edwards down but had been unable to do so. He said he was going back out to look for her. This was his second shower for the day which was unusual. She saw him leave the house and heard his motorbike start up. She described the accused’s return, shower and later departure as “paced” and “fast”. When the accused returned home on the first occasion, she did not see any blood on the accused. 219 When the accused left the house after his shower she was not sure whether he was wearing the same clothes or not. She described him wearing a black outfit. 220 CCTV footage establishes that the accused left the house on the second occasion at 9:24 pm and rode his motorbike away from the property at 9:29 pm. He returned on his motorbike at 11:19 pm with Ms Edwards as a passenger. 221 Ms Giddings did not see or hear the accused and Ms Edwards return to 17 Ferguson Street that night. 222 Ms Giddings was a credible and generally reliable witness. Her estimates of the times when certain events occurred were inaccurate but there was little reason for her to have made a note of any precise time that evening. Ms Giddings was looking after her four siblings and her baby. Ms Giddings was accurate as to the sequence of events. The importance of her evidence lies in her observation that the accused had a shower after coming home on the first occasion that evening. She described the accused’s movements at that stage as “paced” suggesting the accused was in a hurry. The accused’s evidence on the topic of the shower 223 The accused said that he showered because he had been working on his motorbike prior to meeting Beau on 25 April 2023 and was therefore not “fit” to go anywhere. He had received a message from Ms Edwards saying that she was at the Highbury Hotel and to “Make sure you bring the bike right up here, pick me up, grab a couple of jumpers”. In cross-examination he said that he would not go out anywhere unless he had freshened up properly. When challenged that his priority was to get rid of the bag of items that Beau had allegedly handed him and not to have a drink at the pub, he proffered the explanation that he did not think that there had been a serious offence and that he was in no rush to get rid of the bag. 224 That explanation stands in contrast to his earlier evidence that he had to get rid of the bag as soon as he had the chance. On his own evidence the accused must have known that the bag of items related to a serious crime. -- 37 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 36 Mr Arace 225 On the evening of 25 April 2023, Peter Arace (“Mr Arace”) received a number of calls from Ms Edwards. She needed a spare key for her motor vehicle which she kept at his address. He arranged to meet Ms Edwards at the Highbury Hotel which he did around 9:00 pm or 10:00 pm that night. At some stage the accused arrived at the Highbury Hotel on his motorbike. They spoke briefly and Mr Arace thought that the accused looked like he was a bit on edge but nothing too unusual. He was jumpy and looking around. Mr Arace asked the accused why “he was acting so weird for?”. The accused replied, “Nah, I’m all right”. 226 Mr Arace left the Highbury Hotel about five minutes later. 227 Mr Arace was an honest and credible witness. I accept his evidence about how the accused appeared. Dr Sorell 228 It is convenient at this stage to consider Dr Sorell’s evidence. Dr Sorell is an expert in the operation of the mobile telephone network. Dr Sorell holds two degrees from the University of Adelaide namely a Bachelor of Science, majoring in theoretical and experimental physics in addition to a first-class honours degree in Engineering majoring in computer systems. Dr Sorell obtained a PhD in information technology from the George Mason University in Virginia, USA. He lectures in telecommunications, multi-media engineering and digital forensic science at the University of Adelaide and teaches courses, internationally, in telecommunication systems, mobile phone network analysis and mobile phone forensics. 229 Dr Sorell is currently a Director of Digital Forensic Sciences Australia and its Chief Technology Officer. He has been involved in hundreds of criminal investigations and has given expert evidence in courts throughout Australia and internationally. 230 Dr Sorell’s qualifications were not challenged nor was his analysis. What inferences could be drawn from his evidence was the subject of submissions. 231 The essence of his evidence is that through the analysis of call charge records and what is known as event-based monitoring (“EBM”) data, it is possible to place a mobile device within a confined geographical area at a particular time and then track changes to its likely location over time. 232 Having analysed various telephone records, he gave evidence as to the likely movement of the mobile phones of Beau, Ms Nickles-Caston, Toni, Ms Edwards and the accused at relevant times. Dr Sorell’s evidence is relevant to the assessment of the reliability and credibility of Beau’s evidence, his alibi witness, Ms Nickles-Caston’s, evidence and also the accused’s evidence. -- 38 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 37 Structure of the telecommunications system 233 A mobile network consists of a large number of base stations distributed throughout the city and into the country areas. The purpose of the base stations is that a mobile phone will connect locally to a nearby base station rather than a central transceiver. The system then has both coverage and capacity. Where there is customer demand there are more base stations and radio spectrum. 234 A base station can be a standalone mobile telephone tower or it can be for example, a number of antennas mounted on top of the shopping centre. Generally, a base station has three antennas and each antenna covers approximately 120-degree of arc.20 The service provider fixes the direction their antenna is pointed. From the records, Dr Sorell is able to identify the central direction of the antenna and this is referred to as the centre-line of the antenna. 60-degree either side of the centreline or the 120-degree arc is commonly referred to as a sector or a sectored cell. Each sectored cell or antenna has a unique identification number. The sectored cell or antenna is identified not just in terms of its direction but also the specific radiofrequency and the type of technology it uses. 235 In Australia there are three service providers of the infrastructure namely Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. It is common for Optus and Vodafone to co-locate their infrastructure but Telstra less so. Occasionally Telstra will co-locate when convenient. 236 A mobile telephone handset, or mobile, communicates with an antenna via radio waves. The purpose of the cellular system is that a particular antenna is designed to provide its radio signal to a specific area. In suburban Adelaide that area will be approximately two km. In outer suburbs where the population and housing are less dense, the distance may be up to five km. North of Gawler, which his largely farmland, distances may be up to 20 to 30 kms. In the CBD, an area of high density of buildings and people, the distance is about 200 m to 500 m. 237 Generally speaking, mobile phones connect to the antenna that provides the best radio signal. The best radio signal technically means the cleanest radio signal. This is usually, but not invariably, the closest antenna. 238 There are several factors relevant to which base station a mobile handset will connect. The radio signal needs to have a sufficient strength which is generally the closest base station. However, if there is a building between the mobile and a close base station, the preferred service may be a base station in a direct line of sight but further away. As Adelaide is relatively flat, topography is generally not a significant factor. 239 Congestion can affect the best radio signal. Typically call congestion occurs between 8:00 am to 9:00 am and 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm on a weekday. If there is 20 Other configurations are possible such as an omnidirectional base station. The base stations identified at trial included one omnidirectional station. -- 39 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 38 congestion the mobile telephone handset may be directed to a base station, which is not the closest but has the capacity to connect. 240 If two mobile telephone handsets are in the same house they may not necessarily connect to the same antenna. If the handsets were connected to the same network and were both at for example the front door of a house, they are likely to connect to the same antenna. However, if one mobile phone is at the front door and one is at the back door then they may connect to different towers. 241 If a mobile telephone handset remains stationary it would be unusual for it to change connection to a different antenna. If there was congestion for example that may change the condition causing a handset to change which base station it connects to. 242 If a mobile is only using Wi-Fi there will not be an active connection to the mobile network. However, it is commonly the case that the mobile will do both. That is, it will keep a network connection open whilst doing most of the data transfer on the Wi-Fi network. 243 In April 2023, 3G, 4G and 5G were all mobile technology generations operating in South Australia. 244 Dr Sorell was retained to conduct a review of various mobile services for the period beginning 24 April 2023 and ending 26 April 2023. The main purpose of the review was to geographically locate the position of various mobiles at particular times. Dr Sorell was supplied with “raw data” from various sources from which he compiled a series of maps. 245 The raw data included call charge records and an EBM record. The call charge documents record both incoming and outgoing transactions. The documents capture calls that connect, attempted calls, text messages in, text messages out and attempts to text. An EBM record describes the signalling that occurs within the mobile itself and also some of the activity that happens in relation to the mobile connection with the network. 246 When a phone connects to the mobile network for the purpose of connecting to data or internet connection, the data session may last for many hours. The consequence is that a review may show the location where the data connection was used but it will lack clarity as to what the timing of the connection was. The signalling record will record the base station connected and if changes are made to that connection, it will record a hand over to another base station. If a new connection is opened or the previous connection was closed each one of those events will generate a record. The records are useful when trying to establish the location of a phone over time, but these records do not establish whether a phone call to another person is made at that time. The communication records are required for that purpose. For the purpose of his analysis Dr Sorell said that when trying to establish a location and a timeline he would rely on an EBM record if he -- 40 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 39 had one but if there were gaps or anomalies, he would then turn to the communication records for assistance. 247 Dr Sorell reviewed service records of Toni, Beau, his then girlfriend, Ms Nickles-Caston, his ex-partner, Ms Taylor, the accused and the accused’s then partner, Ms Edwards. The raw data and 13 maps were tendered without objection.21 Both the prosecution and the accused relied upon inferences that could be drawn from the data and maps. 248 Dr Sorell explained how the raw data was structured and how he applied the raw data when compiling the 13 maps. Exhibit P68A also contained relevant portions of the raw data relevant to Dr Sorell’s opinions. His explanation was not disputed, and both the prosecution and the accused were content to rely on the information contained in Exhibit P68A. 249 There are, as Dr Sorell acknowledged, limitations on the use that can be made of the records. For example, the fact that a mobile phone can be placed within a confined geographical area does not mean that the person who owned the mobile phone is within the same area. Further, given that on occasions the mobile phone may not be in contact with the closest base station, the location of the mobile phone cannot necessarily be precise. However, with those caveats I will rely on the information contained in Exhibit P68A. 250 I will deal with Dr Sorell’s specific opinions when analysing a particular witness’ evidence. References in my reasons to various base stations and times rely on Dr Sorell’s evidence unless I specify otherwise. Beau’s evidence 251 Beau gave evidence at trial. Beau was called by the prosecution to establish that he was not the one that attacked Toni and Neil. When analysing Beau’s evidence, it is necessary to understand the accused’s defence. It was put clearly to Beau by the accused’s counsel that he was the offender who attacked Toni and Neil on the evening of 25 April 2023. 252 The accused’s evidence was that Beau, shortly before he attacked Toni and Neil, contacted the accused by Facebook Messenger, or by FaceTime, and arranged for the accused to meet him near the old Holden factory on Purling Avenue. The accused, not having any knowledge of why Beau wanted to meet him travelled to the meeting spot and Beau arrived shortly after him. During that meeting, Beau gave the accused items stolen from 18 Small Crescent during the attack and told the accused to get rid of them. That is, the accused had no knowledge of the attack on Toni and Neil and came into possession of items taken 21 Exhibit P68 was a USB containing the raw data as well as 13 maps. Exhibit P68A included hard copies of the 13 maps contained within Exhibit P68. -- 41 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 40 from 18 Small Crescent at Beau’s request. Whether the alleged meeting occurred became a central issue in the case. 253 Beau denied being the attacker or that on the evening of 25 April 2023 he met with his brother. 254 The prosecution called Beau’s then girlfriend, Ms Nickles-Caston, who provided Beau with an alibi. 255 It is against this background that I turn to consider Beau’s evidence. Examination-in-chief 256 Beau is the accused’s older brother. He has three other siblings. 257 In April 2023, Beau was living at 61 Graeber Road, Smithfield not far from where Toni and Neil lived. He was working in the building industry, running his own business, performing concreting, underpinning and foundation work. Beau had been running his business for approximately two years. His normal working day was between 7:30 am and 1:00pm – 2:00pm. 258 Beau had two children, Maxwell aged 10 and Sofia aged seven from his relationship with Ms Taylor. Although there was no formal court order Beau had an agreement with Ms Taylor to have custody of the children on a 50/50 basis. Ms Taylor lived at Blakeview at the time of the attack. 259 Beau had previously been addicted to methamphetamine but, at the time of the trial, he had not used that drug for some five years. However, he has used cannabis on a regular basis since he was about 13 years of age. This included consuming cannabis every day around the time of his father’s death. Beau said he uses cannabis to relax. Prior to April 2023 he had not seen his father for some four years as his father was a drug user. He was also estranged from his mother, Ms Stapleton. 260 Beau said that as of April 2023 his relationship with the accused was “fine”. He described their relationship as sometimes “off-and-on” but when it was “on” they would speak or text every day. 261 On the day his father died, Beau was working at Dernancourt. His sister Taylor told him of his father’s death. Beau left work at around 11:00 am. The accused told him where his father lived. 262 Beau owned a green VF Commodore. He drove to 18 Small Crescent at some time in the afternoon of 24 April 2023 but did not stop as the police were in attendance. At this time Beau did not have a driver’s licence. He said the trip from his house to 18 Small Crescent took about two minutes. Beau recognised the house as he saw his father’s caravan and car. He had been with his father when his father purchased the caravan. -- 42 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 41 263 Beau knew Toni although he had not seen her for some time. He did not know Neil. 264 Beau did not work on 25 April 2023 as it was a public holiday. His ex-partner, Ms Taylor, was working that day so he looked after their children during the day. 265 The prosecution tendered a copy of screenshots of the accused’s phone showing text messages sent between Beau and the accused on 25 April 2023.22 266 There were two text messages of importance. At 12:48 pm on 25 April 2023 Beau sent a text to the accused which said: We will go drop the kids off and then we will go there and I’ll just smash the fuck into him This was followed by a text message Beau sent the accused at 12:49 pm on 25 April 2023: I feel like hurting someone and I don’t care about a charge we will just get him outside behind the gate first. 267 Prior to sending the messages Beau said that he and the accused had spoken on the telephone and the accused had told him that “they”, referring to Toni and Neil, were not going to give his father’s property back. 268 In explaining the texts, Beau stated he thought he would go to the house at 18 Small Crescent but remain outside. He said he did not want to go into the property and fight as that would have meant more serious offending. He would just use his fists in any fight. Beau stated that he was just “venting” in the messages. Beau said that he was in an aggravated mood as he had received information from his children about his ex-partner. Beau stated he had sent the messages because of the issue involving his ex-partner; however, he later calmed down. 269 After Beau had sent the text messages the accused arrived, on his black Honda motorbike, at Beau’s house. 270 In the kitchen, the accused showed Beau a picture of Neil from Facebook.23 Beau stated he was aware that his father was living in a caravan on the premises at 18 Small Crescent. Beau was aware that others lived at the property but did not know who; he only found out it was Neil when the accused showed him the photo. Beau did not know Neil nor had seen him prior to 25 April 2023. Before seeing the photograph, he had pictured Neil as a smaller man with brown hair. Beau stated that as the photograph showed that Neil had long grey hair, a long grey 22 Exhibit P38. 23 Exhibit P39. -- 43 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 42 beard, looked like “Santa Claus” and was an elderly man. Beau said that he had gotten over his earlier agitation and told the accused that he would not fight Neil. 271 Beau described the accused’s behaviour at his house as agitated, and thought the accused said something about not getting their father’s belongings back. However, Beau said that the accused never said he would he go to the house and hurt Toni and Neil. Beau said that he was the only one who said anything like that. 272 Beau deleted the abovementioned text messages on 26 April 2023 because of what the accused eventually told him, and he knew that the text messages may implicate him in the offending. 273 Beau gave evidence that the accused spent about 30 minutes at his house and then had to “rush off” as his partner had lost her car keys. Consistent with Beau’s estimate of the time he and the accused spent together, Dr Sorell’s evidence demonstrates that both Beau and the accused’s mobile phone connected between about 2:30 pm and 3:00 pm with the Smithfield-O base station 245-degree antenna which provides coverage to Beau’s house at 61 Graeber Road. 274 The accused gave evidence that Ms Edwards contacted him while he was at Beau’s house and informed him that she had lost her car keys. The accused said that he left “almost instantly” and that he did so because at that time Beau’s behaviour made him nervous. Analysis of telephone records demonstrates that he did not leave straight away and most likely remained at Beau’s house for approximately 15 minutes after receiving a call from Ms Edwards.24 The prosecution submitted that this discrepancy casts doubt on the accused’s evidence that he left because Beau’s behaviour made him nervous. I accept that submission. 275 After the accused left Beau’s house that afternoon analysis of the telephone records demonstrates that there was no further contact via the mobile phone network, that is by messaging or voice call, between the accused and Beau on 25 April 2023. Beau’s movements on the evening of 25 April 2023 276 Beau said that on 25 April 2023 he looked after his children. As mentioned, he had an informal custody arrangement with his former partner Ms Taylor and he was to take the children to her place at Blakeview in the evening. 277 Beau said that he would usually text Ms Taylor and let her know when he was going to drop the children off. He thought it took him about eight to ten minutes to travel from his house to Ms Taylor’s. Beau said that after he handed over the children to Ms Taylor, he picked up his girlfriend, Ms Nickles-Caston. Ms Nickles-Caston lived about a two-minute drive from Ms Taylor’s house.25 24 The telephone records establish that Ms Edwards called the accused at 2:43 pm on 25 April 2023. This call lasted three minutes and nine seconds. The accused in evidence was clear that it was this telephone call that caused him to leave Beau’s house “almost instantly”. 25 See Exhibit P80, page 12. -- 44 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 43 After Beau picked up Ms Nickles-Caston they drove back to his house; the trip taking about five to six minutes. Beau said they got back to his place around 7:30 pm or 8:00 pm. The prosecution tendered maps that illustrated that the overall trip from Beau’s house to Ms Taylor’s house and then to Ms Nickles-Caston’s house, then returning to Beau’s house would take 15 or so minutes.26 278 Dr Sorell’s analysis of the telephone records is consistent with Beau’s evidence. Beau’s evidence as to the timing of his movements up until around 7:30 pm on 25 April 2023 is supported by a series of text messages and by the telephone records. 279 Beau’s mobile phone was at 61 Graeber Road until around 7:12 pm, then travelling to an area encompassing both Ms Taylor’s address and Ms Nickles-Caston’s address by around 7:17 pm and returning to 61 Graeber Road by around 7:37 pm. Beau’s departure from his house at about 7:12 pm is consistent with the timing and content of the text messages exchanged with Ms Nickles-Caston. 280 Analysis of Ms Nickles-Caston’s mobile telephone data is consistent with her phone being at her home address until 7:13 pm. At 7:35 pm, Ms Nickles-Caston’s phone connected with sector 2 of the Smithfield-O base station consistent with her phone being located at 61 Graeber Road. It remained connecting with this sector until 5:04 am the following morning. 281 After 5:04 am, Ms Nickles-Caston’s phone returned to connecting alternately between the Blakeview and Evanston South base stations consistent with her leaving the address at 61 Graeber Road. 282 I accept that Dr Sorell’s evidence is limited to establishing the movement of the mobile phones; it does not prove who was carrying the phones. However, a combination of the text messages and analysis of telephone records supports Beau’s evidence that he left his house at 61 Graeber Road at about 7:12 pm, travelled to Ms Taylor’s house to drop off the children. He then travelled to Ms Nickles-Caston’s house collecting her at some time after 7:17 pm. The telephone evidence is consistent with Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston travelling to 61 Graeber Road, arriving around 7:30 pm to 7:35 pm. 283 The telephone records establish that the mobile phones of Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston stayed connected to the same base station covering 61 Graeber Road from 7:35 pm on 25 April 2023 until approximately 5:00 am on 26 April 2023.27 284 Beau gave evidence that having returned home he and Ms Nickles-Caston went into the bedroom, had sex and then watched a movie before falling asleep. Beau said he had to get up early to go to work the following day. He said that he 26 See Exhibit P80. 27 See Exhibit P68A, in particular maps 3, 4 and 6. -- 45 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 44 was with Ms Nickles-Caston for the whole night and did not leave his house until he went to work the next morning. Beau said that no one else came to his house that night. Beau’s movements on 26 April 2023 285 Having dropped Ms Nickles-Caston home Beau travelled to where he was working at Dernancourt.28 After finishing work Beau went home and showered. He decided to go to 18 Small Crescent and speak to Neil about collecting items belonging to his father. He drove to 18 Small Crescent and parked his car out the front. Beau walked to the front of the house. The screen door was open and he knocked on the wooden door. There was no response. Beau said that he walked around his father’s car and the caravan, noticed that they were both chained up, and then left. He said that he was there no longer than about 60 seconds and returned to his car. 286 When leaving he noticed the next-door neighbour, Mr Randall, watching him. Beau moved his hand in a manner suggesting “what the eff you looking at” and drove off.29 287 Although he wasn’t sure who made contact, as he was leaving 18 Small Crescent he spoke on his mobile phone to the accused.30 He told the accused that he had been to the house at 18 Small Crescent, knocked on the door but no one was there. 288 The accused said, “they’re in there not moving” and they were “covered in blood” or words to that effect. The accused asked him if he had seen a set of keys on the front lawn. Beau said that he didn’t know what the accused was referring to. He told the accused that he hadn’t seen any keys. Beau said he was in shock at this stage. 289 Beau said that the accused never said directly that he had hurt anyone but his understanding was that the accused had gone into the house, hurt them and “they” weren’t moving. 290 Beau said that after the phone call ended, he went to a nearby OTR as he needed petrol. However, the telephone records and CCTV footage from the OTR establish that the accused rang Beau just before he pulled into the OTR and the call ended after Beau had been at the OTR for approximately three minutes.31 291 While he was at the OTR, Beau rang the Elizabeth Police Station. The call was taken by Amber Thompson (“Ms Thompson”), whose evidence I discuss later 28 Exhibit P41 was a tax invoice for work completed by Beau during the week commencing 24 April 2023. 29 Mr Randall gave evidence that Beau made a gesture with his hand mimicking a gun. I reject that evidence. Mr Randall misinterpreted Beau’s gesture in light of subsequent events. 30 The telephone records show that the accused rang Beau at 3:49:36 pm on 26 April 2023 and the call finished around 3:53:18 pm. 31 CCTV footage from the OTR shows Beau arriving at 3:50 pm in his Holden Commodore. He remained in his car for 16 minutes and 55 seconds before getting out and putting petrol in his car at 4:06 pm. -- 46 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 45 in these reasons. This call commenced at 3:54 pm and was made only 42 seconds after the call with the accused finished. Beau wanted the police to do a welfare check on the people at 18 Small Crescent because of what the accused had told him. Beau said that the police appeared to be reluctant to do a welfare check and he was on the phone for about 10 minutes.32 292 Beau said that the accused rang him at about 4:30 pm to 5:00 pm.33 The accused asked to borrow some money. They didn’t speak about the earlier call. 293 Beau said that he had been with the accused when the accused bought his motorbike about three months earlier. He was aware that the accused had a new girlfriend, but he hadn’t met her. Beau did not know where the accused was living at the time. 294 Photographs of Beau’s tattoos were tendered.34 Beau admitted smoking cannabis on 25 April 2023. He said it had a calming effect on him. He admitted smoking cannabis since he was 13 and said he smoked it every day. He had previously been addicted to methamphetamine but had been “clean” for five years. Cross-examination 295 It was suggested in cross-examination that Beau callously and brutally attacked Toni and Neil on 25 April 2023. Beau strenuously denied it. 296 The following interchange then took place: Q. You have no love for your brother, Thomas Stapleton-Wescott – A. Oh right now, no sir. I have so much hatred inside of me for him for what he has done, you do not understand how much hatred I have towards him. He is a gutless coward man. Q. And, indeed, I think on occasion you sent his partner a text message to which you said in that he should just take his own life, correct. A. Yes, for what he’s done, sir. Q. And what he’s done, according to you, is say that you’re the person who’s committed the offences to which he’s charged with, correct. A. Yes sir. As can be seen, Beau made no secret of his dislike of the accused. 297 Unsurprisingly the thrust of the cross-examination was to undermine Beau’s credibility and reliability. The cross-examination focused on three main areas. 32 The telephone records show that the call lasted about 11 minutes and 36 seconds, ending at 4:05:36 pm. 33 Telephone records demonstrate that the accused called Beau at 4:34:52 pm. 34 Exhibit P43. -- 47 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 46 298 First, Beau was cross-examined about the text messages he sent to the accused the day of the attack saying he wanted to go around to 18 Small Crescent and “smash the fuck into him”. It was suggested to Beau that he did indeed intend to smash into Neil and that he was lying in his evidence about changing his mind. Beau denied that and agreed that he sent the messages but that he was just venting; he had no intention of assaulting Neil. Beau repeated his evidence-in-chief that he was upset about what his children had told him about his ex-partner. 299 Beau admitted deleting the text messages with the accused after he had called the police on 26 April 2023 because he understood they could incriminate him. 300 Secondly, Beau admitted that he and Ms Nickles-Caston, subsequent to 26 April 2023, had spoken about the case. Beau said that they may have talked about the events that evening and in particular what time he allegedly picked her up on 25 April 2023. Beau said they had talked about the events in general terms because they had nothing to hide. 301 Beau was taken to text messages sent just prior to 1 October 2024, between Ms Nickles-Caston and himself. They concerned the evidence of Ms Nickles-Caston and whether she could remember the evening of 25 April 2023. Although the question was not put directly, the implication of the cross-examination was to suggest that he had been coaching Ms Nickles-Caston on what to say. Beau agreed he sent some text messages but that he was only trying to put her mind to ease. 302 Thirdly, Beau was cross-examined about his past criminal history. His prior convictions included a conviction for aggravated recklessly causing serious bodily harm for which he received a three and half year term of imprisonment which was suspended on him entering into a good behaviour bond. He breached the bond on occasions, and the bond was extended. The breaching offences included failing to report to his Corrections officer and returning positive drug tests. 303 In March of 2016, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one week for breaching the bond. In 2024, Beau was sentenced for drink driving offences. The sentence imposed was a good behaviour bond of nine months. 304 In January 2020, Beau was charged with assault but the charge did not proceed. 305 The accused submitted that these matters significantly affected the credibility and reliability of Beau’s evidence. 306 I have carefully considered these matters when assessing Beau’s credibility and reliability along with the accused’s other submissions. However, it must be borne in mind that when assessing Beau’s evidence, and indeed the evidence of all witnesses, I must take into account all of the evidence. -- 48 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 47 307 Beau was challenged in cross-examination about his movements on the night of the attack. Counsel for the accused suggested to Beau that having dropped his children at Ms Taylor’s house he did not go to pick up Ms Nickles-Caston but went home and that sometime between 8:00 pm and 8:30 pm he went to 18 Small Crescent and attacked Toni and Neil. Sometime prior to attacking Toni and Neil it was suggested to Beau that he had contacted the accused by means of a Facebook message through Messenger telling the accused to meet him near the old Holden factory.35 Counsel for the accused suggested that Beau met the accused as arranged and handed him various items that he had taken from the premises at 18 Small Crescent after he had attacked Toni and Neil. Beau vigorously denied those allegations. 308 In relation to the phone call the accused made to Beau at 3:49:36 pm as he arrived at the OTR, counsel for the accused put to Beau a different account of what occurred. It was suggested that Beau told the accused that people in the house were “not moving”, that Beau told the accused not to go back to 18 Small Crescent because “they’re fucked up”, that it was the accused who wanted to organise a tow truck to remove his father’s car and caravan from 18 Small Crescent. It was also suggested that there was a second short phone call between the two of them and Beau repeated to the accused that he shouldn’t go around to the house after which the accused hung up the phone after calling Beau a “fucking idiot”. Beau denied the allegations. 309 The telephone records do not support the accused’s suggestion of a second telephone call between Beau and the accused until 4:34:52 pm. 310 Counsel for the accused suggested that it was after the second phone call that Beau rang the police because he was concerned that the accused knew what he had done. That is why he made an anonymous call. Beau denied those propositions. Beau was questioned about the content of his conversation with the police officer at the Elizabeth Police Station. 311 Beau was also cross-examined about whether he owned a motorbike. Beau said that he did own a 50cc motorbike which his young son rode. He said it was too small for him to ride. It was suggested that he was lying about that and in fact he owned a bigger bike. 312 After completing re-examination, I released Beau from giving any further evidence. However, he was later recalled to give further evidence. This related to his betting activities and the use of his mobile phone. Beau’s recall 313 Beau was recalled as a witness. He gave further evidence on 7 November 2024 about his betting activities. He had given a statement to the police about his 35 In evidence the accused said Beau contacted him by means of the FaceTime app, not Facebook Messenger. I draw no inference from the disparity. -- 49 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 48 betting activities on 5 November 2024. He did not speak to Ms Nickles-Caston after he gave his statement. 314 The relevance of Beau’s betting activities on his phone became clear after Dr Sorell gave further evidence. The relevance of the evidence lay in the timing of Beau’s phone downloading images relating to his betting activities. I will deal with Dr Sorell’s recall after analysing Beau’s further evidence. 315 Beau had provided his Apple iPhone to the police. He was using this phone as at 25 April 2023 and was still using it at the time of the trial. 316 As at April 2023 Beau was using his phone for betting activities. He considered himself a professional punter; gambling many times a day. He used more than one betting agency and he has been banned from some betting agencies. 317 Beau said that he uses large group chats such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Discord as part of betting subscription services. Generally, he would access these group chats once in the morning and once in the evening. Occasionally he would check during the day. Beau said that he would generally check when getting ready for bed or when “settling down for the night”. The fact that he would check did not mean that he would necessarily place a bet. He could spend up to 20 to 30 minutes checking a group chat. 318 Images taken from Beau’s phone of a group chat relating to Sportsbet were tendered.36 Beau recognised that the images were from Sportsbet by its format. Beau recognised that the images “from the syndicates and the subscription services” that he was part of. Other subscribers would post in the group chats. He did not have a Sportsbet account at that time, so he was able to say they were not his “images”. 319 To access the group chats such as WhatsApp he would need to unlock his phone by using his passcode. He could then access the application. Access to other applications may be by facial identification. 320 If he wished to look at images such as those seen in Exhibit P93 the method of access differed between the applications. For WhatsApp he had to press a button to download the image. If it was the Facebook Messenger application images would appear once it was accessed. 321 A recent screenshot from the WhatsApp application on Beau’s phone was tendered.37 This showed an arrow hovering over the image which had to be pushed or tapped to download the image. 322 If the image was downloaded it was, unknown to him, saved on his phone. The number of images he would download varied but could be up to 100. A 36 Exhibit P93. 37 Exhibit P94. -- 50 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 49 screenshot of his WhatsApp settings on his phone was tendered.38 They were the same settings as at 25 April 2023 as he hadn’t changed them. A screenshot of his Facebook Messenger settings was also tendered.39 323 Beau said he could not recall whether he accessed one of these group chats at 8:32 pm on 25 April 2023. Ms Nickles-Caston did not have access to his password or phone. Beau did not have access to Wi-Fi at his home in April 2023 so he would access the internet through cellular data. 324 Under cross-examination, Beau agreed that he had a Samsung phone as at April 2023 but it was not being used. He said he did not use it to contact the accused in April 2023. 325 Beau agreed that he did not have an actual recollection of accessing his betting group chats on 25 April 2023 but it was something he did regularly. It was part of his “nightly routine”. He denied giving his passcode to anyone other than Brevet Sergeant Coulthard. 326 Beau was then cross-examined about the aggravated serious criminal trespass offence he committed in December 2008. Counsel suggested that the accused was his co-offender in that matter; Beau agreed. However, on 19 March 2012 Beau gave evidence under oath before Judge Herriman in the District Court of South Australia on a disputed fact hearing and denied the co-offender was his brother but rather a bikie he didn’t want to name. He agreed that he lied on oath before Judge Herriman. Beau said this was a lie to protect his brother. 327 Beau agreed that his version of events on the disputed fact hearing was not accepted by Judge Herriman. Beau maintained that leaving aside the lie he told to protect the accused, he still considered his version of events to be correct despite Judge Herriman’s findings. 328 It was put to Beau that he had told the accused that he had to “take the fall” for this offence as Beau had protected the accused in 2008. That is, Beau had a motive to lie. 329 There is no need for the accused to prove that Beau had a motive to lie. I accept that people can tell lies for all sorts of reasons. If Beau committed the offence he obviously had a motive to lie. I will consider the suggested motive when assessing the evidence but I remind myself that the accused bears no onus of proof. 330 The cross-examination elicited from Beau that the accused had participated in a violent offence. Although the accused when giving evidence said he played a minor role in the offending he admitted to the criminal offending. This admission was to acts which amount to discreditable conduct. The purpose of the 38 Exhibit P95. 39 Exhibit P96. -- 51 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 50 cross-examination was to establish a motive to lie as discussed. I limit the use of the evidence to that issue. I direct myself that I must not use the evidence to reason that the accused is a bad person or that he has a propensity to commit crimes or act violently. 331 Beau denied meeting the accused near where the old Holden factory used to be. He denied having a conversation with the accused where he told him to go to their mother’s house and to make sure the cameras were off. 332 Beau denied carefully concocting an alibi with Ms Nickles-Caston. 333 It is convenient to analyse the further evidence given by Dr Sorell. Dr Sorell’s recall 334 Dr Sorell was recalled to give evidence about data extracted from Beau’s Apple iPhone in relation to his betting activities. It is unnecessary to go into specific detail of evidence given by Dr Sorell on his recall. His evidence on this issue was not disputed. 335 Dr Sorell was provided with a spreadsheet displaying data extracted from Beau’s phone, and a report displaying photographic images accompanied by metadata. The report had been generated using the Magnet AXIOM software, an application with which Dr Sorell was familiar. The photographic images with the metadata were tendered.40 Dr Sorell was asked in effect to determine how the series of images in Exhibit P93 came to be on the handset and the timing of their receipt on the handset. 336 While there was no voice call or text message activity on Beau’s phone after 7:44 pm on 25 April 2023, Dr Sorell’s opinion was, having considered the records, that at approximately 8:32 pm on 25 April 2023 Beau, or someone with access to his phone, had opened the WhatsApp application on the phone and accessed a group chat associated with betting. This caused the images in Exhibit P93 to be downloaded on Beau’s phone at 8:32:06 pm. The images all have the same “Created Date and Time Stamp” indicating that they were downloaded in parallel, taking less than two seconds to download. 337 Dr Sorell considered, but excluded, that the images were downloaded to the phone without active user engagement. That is, someone must have used Beau’s phone to activate the WhatsApp application at 8:32:06 pm on 25 April 2023. 338 It is convenient to now deal with Ms Taylor and Ms Nickles-Caston’s evidence. Both supported Beau’s evidence. 40 Exhibit P97. -- 52 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 51 Ms Taylor 339 Ms Taylor is Beau’s former partner with whom he had two children. She confirmed that on 25 April 2023 their two children had been with Beau during the day. Her memory was that he had dropped the children off to her at 29 Belanger Court, Blakeview a little late that evening, around 7:30 pm or 8:00 pm, and this caused her some annoyance. The children’s usual bedtime was 7:30 pm or 8:00 pm. Ms Taylor could not recall if she spoke with Beau that evening when he dropped the children off. He did not come into the house, and was not there for long, maybe a couple of minutes. 340 Ms Taylor also confirmed that Beau would normally message her to say that he was on his way, when he is returning the children. This would normally be about five or 10 minutes before he arrived. 341 Ms Taylor’s evidence was not disputed. I accept Ms Taylor’s evidence. Ms Nickles-Caston 342 As at 25 April 2023, Ms Nickles-Caston was in a relationship with Beau. The relationship lasted about six months ending in September 2023. On occasions, Ms Nickles-Caston would stay overnight at Beau’s house at 61 Graeber Road. When she did so, Beau would collect her from her house at 24 Angove Drive, Blakeview. He would text message her to say that he was on his way. 343 Ms Nickles-Caston confirmed that she planned to see Beau on 25 April 2023 and as usual, Beau messaged her to let her know that he was on his way to pick her up. A screenshot of text messages taken on Ms Nickles-Caston’s mobile phone showed messages she exchanged with Beau between 7:00 pm and 7:08 pm that evening.41 344 Ms Nickles-Caston said that Beau collected her that night just before 7:30 pm. Beau was driving his grey or green Holden sedan. Ms Nickles-Caston said she went to his car and Beau did not come inside her house. Beau was by himself. They drove straight back to his house the trip taking about five minutes. Ms Nickles-Caston said they arrived at Beau’s house probably just after 7:30 pm. There was no one else at Beau’s house. They watched a movie, and then went to Beau’s bedroom and had sex, before going to sleep around 8:30 pm or 9:00 pm. They both had early morning starts. Ms Nickles-Caston worked at a childcare centre and started work at 6:00 am. 345 Ms Nickles-Caston said Beau did not leave the house at any time between when she arrived at his house and the following morning. No one visited the house and she did not hear any vehicles arrive at Beau’s house. The following morning, Beau drove her home, arriving about 5:30 am. 41 Exhibit P40. -- 53 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 52 346 It was put to Ms Nickles-Caston in cross-examination that Beau picked her up after 8:30 pm. When giving her statement to the police she had told the police it was nearer 8:00 pm. Ms Nickles-Caston said she was confused when giving her statement to the police. Ms Nickles-Caston denied taking drugs on 25 April 2023. She denied speaking to Beau before trial about the timing of when they were together. There was no further cross-examination on this topic. 347 Ms Nickles-Caston was questioned as to why some of her text messages had been blacked out. She explained that she blacked out the top portion of the screenshot as the messages were about her, and were of a private, sexual nature. There was no mention in these messages of the accused, his father or the property. Nor was there any suggestion of Beau wanting to hurt anyone. Ms Nickles-Caston’s recall 348 Ms Nickles-Caston was recalled as a witness and gave evidence relevant to Beau’s betting account and use of his mobile phone. Ms Nickles-Caston said she did not know the passcode to Beau’s phone. She said she did not access his phone at all in April 2023 and did not access his phone while at his house on the evening of 25 April 2023. She knew Beau had an interest in betting but had no interest herself. 349 In cross-examination she agreed she did not see Beau on his phone on that evening. 350 It was not specifically put to Ms Nickles-Caston that she was lying about being in Beau’s company after about 7:30 pm on 25 April 2023. However, there was a general attack on her credibility particularly in relation to discussions with Beau about her evidence and her potential drug taking. 351 I have taken into account the accused’s submissions regarding Ms Nickles-Caston’s truthfulness, credibility and reliability. Ms Nickles-Caston was an impressive witness who I find was truthful, credible and reliable. Ms Thompson 352 In April 2023, Ms Thompson was a station support officer at the Elizabeth Police Station. She answered Beau’s call on 26 April 2023.42 Ms Thompson made some notes of the call but not all the notes were made contemporaneously. She said that she made some notes after the call had finished while the conversation was fresh in her memory. The phone call was not recorded. 353 Ms Thompson said that the caller was reluctant to identify himself but did provide the name “Beau”. She could not recall how far into the call this was. Beau wanted to remain anonymous and did not provide his telephone number. 42 The telephone records reveal that Beau called the Elizabeth Police Station at 3:54 pm on 26 April 2023 and the call lasted about 11 minutes and 36 seconds. -- 54 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 53 Ms Thompson believed the caller did identify his father by name, being Mr Wescott. 354 Following the call Ms Thompson accessed further information and she became aware that Mr Wescott was associated with a caravan. 355 Beau requested a welfare check at 18 Small Crescent. Ms Thompson explained that the call took about 10 minutes, because the information provided in relation to this request was quite vague. She tried to get more information from the caller but also let him explain things at his own pace. She did not try to dissuade Beau from giving information or delay him in the process of providing information. 356 When Ms Thompson asked the caller for further information, he said that he heard that people were not moving, and that he had received information that the occupants of the address were inside, covered in blood, and required medical attention. Ms Thompson enquired further about the blood, but the caller could not provide further information. The caller said something about his younger brother but did not provide a name. 357 The call came to an end when Ms Thompson told “Beau” that she would “put a CAD job on” and patrols would attend. She believes he thanked her and was grateful that she had created the job. At 4:13 pm, at the end of, or shortly after, the conversation, Ms Thompson created a “CAD job” on the system for patrols to attend to conduct the requested welfare check. 358 Both the prosecution and the accused submitted that I could not use Ms Thompson’s evidence to bolster Beau’s credibility. That is, I could not use the content of the conversation as prior consistent statements to bolster Beau’s credibility. 359 It was agreed that the use of the evidence was that the conduct of Beau in contacting the police almost immediately after speaking with the accused, including the information he passed on to Ms Thompson during their conversation, can be used to assess the probability, or improbability, of Beau being the person who attacked Toni and Neil. 360 I will limit the use of this evidence as agreed. I consider that the timing of the call to Ms Thompson is consistent with Beau’s evidence. 361 Overall, the prosecution submitted that Beau and Ms Thompson’s accounts of how the call transpired were consistent. 362 While the use the prosecution can make of this evidence is restricted, the accused pointed to inconsistencies between Beau’s account of the call and that of Ms Thompson’s. I accept that this is an appropriate submission. Ms Thompson was an honest witness. However, differences in the recollections are to be expected. Beau was not confronted directly with alleged inconsistencies in -- 55 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 54 cross-examination. I have had regard to the prosecution and the accused’s submissions on this issue. 363 Beau’s evidence was totally supported by Ms Nickles-Caston and also by Ms Taylor. I reject the accused’s submission that Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston have conspired together to provide Beau with a false alibi. I have carefully considered the accused’s submissions as to why I should have at least some doubt about Beau’s evidence. I reject the accused’s submissions on this matter and I deal with this issue later in these reasons. Police attendance at the accused’s premises 364 Police seized the accused’s motorbike from the premises at 17 Ferguson Street on 26 April 2023. On 28 April 2023, at the Ottoway police compound, Sergeant Logan examined the motorbike. 365 No fingerprints were detected. The left and right handgrips were swabbed and later tested for DNA. 366 The ignition key to the motorbike, attached to a lanyard, was in the ignition. Sergeant Logan seized the key and lanyard. The lanyard was tendered.43 367 On a visual inspection of the motorbike Sergeant Logan did not observe any staining consistent with blood. Luminol, a chemical which reacts to the presence of blood in trace amounts was applied but no blood stains were identified. The motorbike showed no signs of having been cleaned with bleach. Examination of the lanyard, Exhibit P4 368 As mentioned, Exhibit P4, the lanyard, was attached to the ignition key found in the motorbike’s ignition when seized by police on 26 April 2023. It was examined at Forensic Science South Australia (“FSSA”). Rebecca Windram (“Ms Windram”), a senior forensic biologist at FSSA gave evidence of the examination and the results of DNA testing. Ms Windram was well qualified to give her expert opinions, and her evidence was not challenged. I accept her evidence. 369 What inferences could be drawn from her evidence was the issue. 370 When police searched the accused’s premises they located two plastic resealable bags in the main bedroom. Inside one of the plastic bags were documents along with keys and another lanyard. They were seized and tendered as part of Exhibit P8. 371 Toni identified that the keys and lanyard forming part of Exhibit P8 were keys to the caravan which the accused had attempted to snatch from her on the 43 Exhibit P4. -- 56 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 55 afternoon of 24 April 2023. Toni said that she hadn’t seen the keys and lanyard since the accused tried to snatch them. 372 The accused’s evidence in relation to the two lanyards, and where he got them from, was not consistent and somewhat confusing. The final position is that the accused was unsure as to how he came to possess both lanyards. Although I think it likely that he took the lanyard, Exhibit P4, from his father’s caravan,44 I do not think that it matters. The accused said that after he got hold of one of the lanyards, he took off the keys that were attached and put his motorbike ignition key onto the lanyard. He did this on the evening of 24 April 2023. It was this lanyard, Exhibit P4, that the police seized from the motorbike. 373 Exhibit P4 was subjected to forensic analysis. Ms Windram identified three areas of staining. 374 Stain one was an area of faint red-brown staining, approximately 10 x 7 mm in size. A cutting was taken from this area and analysed. A mixed DNA profile originating from three contributors was obtained. Ms Windram opined that there was extremely strong support for the proposition that the accused contributed to this mixed profile. Also, there was extremely strong support for the proposition that Neil contributed to this mixed profile. It can be concluded that the both the accused and Neil contributed DNA to the area of stain one on the lanyard (along with an unknown contributor). 375 Stain two was an area of red-orange staining, approximately 1 x 1 mm in size. It was not analysed for the presence of DNA. 376 Stain three was an area of faint red-brown staining which extended over both sides of the lanyard, approximately 60 x 15 mm in size. 377 A cutting was taken from this area and analysed. A mixed DNA profile originating from three contributors was obtained. There was extremely strong support for the proposition that the accused contributed to this mixed profile. Also, there was extremely strong support for the proposition that Neil contributed to this mixed profile. It can be concluded that both Neil and the accused contributed DNA to the area of stain three on the lanyard. 378 Stains one, two and three each returned a positive result to a Hemastix test at five seconds. Hemastix is a presumptive test for blood but is not confirmatory. HemaTrace testing was also undertaken on a portion of stain three, and it returned a positive result. HemaTrace is a highly specific test for human blood and confirms the presence of blood.45 It can be concluded that stain three is human blood. The testing is suggestive that all three stains are human blood. 44 Although not shown in the video footage on Exhibit P23. 45 Although the blood of higher primates will also provide a positive result this is not a relevant consideration on the fact of this case. -- 57 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 56 379 The prosecution submitted that the presence of Neil’s DNA on the lanyard, including in an area where human blood was found, is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, having regard to the following matters in particular: a. the lanyard was located attached to a set of keys in the ignition of the accused’s motorbike seized from 17 Ferguson Street at about 8:30 pm on 26 April 2023 (that is, about 24 hours after Neil was attacked); b. on the accused’s evidence, he had attached the lanyard to his keys on the Monday evening, 24 April 2023; c. it is likely that whoever attacked Toni and Neil rode a motorbike to and from the scene and the accused was travelling on his motorbike proximate to the time of the attacks; d. there is no evidence that the motorbike left 17 Ferguson Street between the accused arriving home on it, with Ms Edwards at 11:19:13 pm on 25 April 2023, and its seizure by police the following night; e. Neil’s injuries caused significant bleeding. There were two separate strikes of the weapon to Neil’s head which makes it likely that some blood would be deposited on or transferred to his attacker; and f. the coincidence of Neil’s DNA and human blood being in the same area of staining suggests that the source of Neil’s DNA in the area is his blood. 380 The accused submitted that as it is probable that the lanyard was taken from the caravan then there was a likelihood that Neil’s DNA may have been on the lanyard before the accused took possession of it. Therefore, the inference cannot be drawn that the source of Neil’s DNA on the lanyard is Neil’s blood. Thus, the accused submitted that it cannot be accepted that the blood located on the lanyard was transferred onto the lanyard after the time of the attack. Also, the accused pointed to the unknown contributor in the DNA samples as potentially being the source of the blood staining. Discussion 381 The DNA and blood staining on the lanyard have to be assessed in light of the entire body of circumstantial evidence in this case. The accused did not submit, correctly in my view, that the DNA evidence was irrelevant and therefore should be excluded. I accept that on the facts of this case, as the accused submitted, the evidence leaves open the possibility of secondary or tertiary transfer of DNA and/or blood. This weakens the probative value of this evidence. However, the probative value of the forensic evidence is not extinguished simply because the prosecution cannot exclude other scenarios that could account for the deposition of human blood and Neil’s DNA on the lanyard.46 The DNA and blood evidence 46 R v Pfennig [2018] SASCFC 27 at [70] (Stanley J, Kourakis CJ and Peek J agreeing). -- 58 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 57 in relation to Exhibit P4 is a piece of circumstantial evidence that has some probative, albeit slight, weight. Other DNA evidence 382 The accused’s backpack seized from 17 Ferguson Street47 was examined at FSSA. Several areas of staining on the exterior of the backpack were noted and tested for blood using Hemastix. All results were negative. No staining was found on the interior of the backpack. The contents of the backpack (including a roll of tape and a single black-grey sock) were not analysed. 383 The helmet seized from 17 Ferguson Street48 was also examined. Four areas of staining were identified on the front of the helmet. Each area produced a positive result to Hemastix at five seconds. While blood-like stains are typically described as red-brown in colour, three of the stains were described as cream brown, and one as brown. 384 Swabs were taken from the four areas of staining. The DNA concentration in the samples was below the threshold set by FSSA for further analysis, as no DNA was detected. That does not mean that no DNA was present. It did, however, result in the analysis being terminated. 385 Swabs were taken from the right and left hand of the accused, including from his fingernails on 26 April 2023. All swabs produced negative results when tested with Hemastix. All swabs were tested for the presence of DNA, and all produced mixed DNA profiles with two contributors. In relation to two profiles, Toni and Neil were excluded as being possible contributors. In relation to the remaining two swabs, there was extremely strong support that neither of them had contributed to the DNA profiles. 386 Swabs were taken from various blood-like stains at 17 Ferguson Street. In some cases, the DNA concentration in the samples was below the threshold set by FSSA for further analysis. Otherwise, the statistical weighting was in favour of Toni and Neil not contributing to the DNA profiles, or they were excluded as contributors. 387 The swabs taken by Sergeant Logan of the left and right handgrips on the accused’s motorbike were submitted to FSSA for analysis. In relation to the left handgrip and brake lever, a mixed DNA profile with three contributors was generated. Ms Windram opined that there was extremely strong support for the proposition that the accused contributed to this mixed profile. There was also very strong support for the proposition that Toni and Neil did not contribute to that mixed DNA profile. In relation to the right handgrip and brake lever, a mixed DNA profile with four contributors was generated. Ms Windram opined that there was very strong support that the accused was not a contributor. There was 47 Exhibit P58. 48 Exhibit P57. -- 59 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 58 extremely strong support or very strong support that Toni and Neil also did not contribute to the mixed DNA profile generated. 388 The accused submitted that the lack of DNA evidence linking him to the attack was a factor that supported his defence. No DNA of Toni and Neil was found on the swabs of his hands and fingernails. No blood stains were found on the motorbike or the helmet seized. No DNA or blood-like staining was located on the backpack. No relevant forensic evidence was detected at the accused mother’s house. 389 The accused submitted that the lack of forensic evidence was not neutral. The lack of forensic evidence in places where logically it could be found positively supported his defence. 390 The prosecution pointed to the fact that the accused had the opportunity to remove any traces of blood or DNA before the police arrested him. There was time to wash his motorbike. The uncontested evidence is that he showered upon his return to 17 Ferguson Street before heading to the Highbury Hotel. It is likely that he changed his clothes. Ms Stapleton, the accused’s mother, had time to clean any traces of blood or potential DNA sources at her residence, 5 Stone Court, Parafield Gardens, before the police arrived. 391 I have had regard to both the prosecution and the accused’s submissions when considering this matter. 392 The lack of forensic evidence from the motorbike helmet does not mean the helmet was not worn. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Toni that her last memory of the evening of 25 April 2023 is of seeing the colours red and yellow. Given the nature of her injuries, I am unable to rely on Toni’s recollection of seeing the colours red and yellow immediately before being struck. I disregard that evidence. A narrow investigation? 393 The accused submitted that the police investigation focussed on the accused and didn’t properly investigate Beau’s potential involvement in the attack. For example, the accused submitted that the police failed to obtain CCTV footage from neighbouring properties that may have provided evidence of Beau’s movements on 25 April 2023. Nor did the police subject Beau’s home, vehicle or clothing to any search or forensic examination as they did the accused. Beau admitted having a second phone although he said that he didn’t use it in 2023. 394 However, it must be remembered that the version of events that the accused now says occurred was clearly unknown to the police until trial. The accused, despite having the opportunity to name Beau in his interview did not do so. As I deal with in more detail later in these reasons, I reject the accused’s evidence that he told Brevet Sergeant Coulthard ‘off the record’ that Beau was involved. -- 60 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 59 395 While there are suggestions in the prison calls, and the text messages Beau sent to the accused on 25 April 2023, that he may have had some involvement, the accused did not specifically tell authorities of Beau’s role until trial. The police however did question Beau. Beau had an alibi for the time of the attack, and the police investigated his alibi. Ms Nickles-Caston supported his alibi. There was no reason to consider that Ms Nickles-Caston was telling lies when supporting Beau. Further his mobile phone was seized and reviewed; his telephone records were obtained and analysis by Dr Sorell supported his alibi. Further, Brevet Sergeant Coulthard made attempts to obtain CCTV footage from surrounding houses but was unsuccessful. 396 I reject the submission that the police investigation was too narrow. In any event, as the prosecution submitted, my role is to consider the evidence and determine whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused’s movements on the evening of 25 April 2023 397 The prosecution established the accused’s movements on the evening of 25 April 2023 by CCTV records, telephone records and their analysis, speed camera photographs, and the witness, Ms Giddings. Much of this evidence was, in the final analysis, not disputed. CCTV footage 398 CCTV footage was obtained from various properties namely: • 19 Ferguson Street, Salisbury North; • 16 Ferguson Street, Salisbury North; • 20 Ferguson Street, Salisbury North; • 41 Piper Street, Parafield Gardens; • 1 Ralph Street, Parafield Gardens; and • X Convenience Petrol Station, Elizabeth South. 399 The various CCTV clips show the accused, during the afternoon of 25 April 2023, leaving and returning to the premises at 17 Ferguson Street on his motorbike. The accused at around 8:05 pm is seen leaning on the fence at 17 Ferguson Street. 400 Of particular relevance are the clips that show that at around 8:15:57 pm the accused leaves 17 Ferguson Street riding his motorbike. This fact was not disputed. The engine noise from the motorbike can be heard for approximately one minute after it leaves the premises. The accused admitted that his motorbike was “loud”. -- 61 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 60 401 At 8:49:05 pm, the CCTV shows the accused riding his motorbike past 41 Piper Street on his way to Ms Stapleton’s residence at 5 Stone Court. This fact was not disputed. 402 At 8:59:02 pm, CCTV shows the accused riding his motorbike past 41 Piper Street on this way to 17 Ferguson Street. 403 At 9:04:09 pm, CCTV footage shows the accused arriving, on his motorbike, at 17 Ferguson Street. The accused shifts the Nissan X-Trial parked in the driveway to allow him to take his motorbike to the rear of the house. 404 The accused at 9:24:05 pm is shown on CCTV manoeuvring his motorbike from the garage area to a position outside the front gates at 17 Ferguson Street. At 9:28:58 pm the accused rides away from 17 Ferguson Street. 405 The accused and Ms Edwards arrive at 17 Ferguson Street at 11:19:13 pm on the accused’s motorbike. 406 I find that the accused left the premises at 17 Ferguson Street on his motorbike at around 8:15:57 pm. I find that he rode his motorbike past 41 Piper Street at 8:49:05 pm. I find that he returned to 17 Ferguson Street at 9:04:09 pm. The accused left 17 Ferguson Street a second time on his motorbike at 9:28:58 pm returning with Ms Edwards as a passenger at 11:19:13 pm. Telephone records 407 The prosecution relied on the combination of telephone records and CCTV as pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that the accused was the attacker. 408 At 8:17:31 pm, on 25 April 2023 the accused’s mobile telephone detached from the Vodaphone network. That is, it detached approximately one minute and 24 seconds after he left 17 Ferguson Street. The phone detached 27 seconds before the accused rode past the speed camera on Diment Road. The speed camera detected the accused’s motorbike travelling at 99 km per hour at 8:17:58 pm. Immediately prior to it detaching it was connected to the Edinburgh West base station, 220-degree antenna. This antenna provided coverage to the area of Diment Road where the speed camera was located. 409 Prior to the accused’s phone detaching from the network, the last outgoing activity was an 18 second voice call to Ms Edwards at 8:14 pm. This call ended one minute and 39 seconds before the accused left 17 Ferguson Street. 410 At 8:42:41 pm, the accused’s mobile phone reattached to the Vodaphone network through the Edinburgh West base station, 220-degree antenna. This was the same antenna that the phone was connected to immediately prior to it detaching. -- 62 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 61 411 Dr Sorell explained that the records established that the phone and network “negotiated to disconnect”. The phone and the network engage in a “handshake” during which the phone advised the network that it is disconnecting. The negotiation to disconnect occurs if the battery of the phone goes flat, if the phone is switched off or if the phone is put into flight mode. The handshake does not occur if the disconnection occurs because the battery or the phone is damaged. 412 A phone that is off will reattach to the network when it is switched on. The same applies if flight mode is switched off. If a battery has become flat, a phone will switch on after about one minute if plugged into a charger 413 The accused’s phone detached from the network for the time period when Toni and Neil were attacked. The accused had no means of charging his phone battery at the time it reconnected to the network. 414 The prosecution submitted that the evidence establishes that the accused deliberately switched his phone off prior to attacking Toni and Neil. The accused later gave evidence that his phone simply stopped working, for unknown reasons, for this period of time. 415 CCTV footage commencing at 8:49:13 pm shows the accused riding his motorbike through the junction of Piper Street and Hilda Court. This intersection is only a short distance from the accused’s mothers house at 5 Stone Court. The accused accepted that he attended at his mother’s house around this time. 416 At 8:59:02 pm, CCTV shows the accused riding his motorbike through the junction of Piper Street and Hilda Court on his way back to his house at 17 Ferguson Street. CCTV shows the accused arriving at 17 Ferguson Street at 9:04:09 pm. The noise of his motorbike can be clearly heard on some of the CCTV footage. The accused took his motorbike around the back of the house. 417 At 9:24:05 pm, CCTV shows the accused manoeuvring his motorbike from the back of the house outside the front gates at 17 Ferguson Street. He rides away at 9:28:58 pm. 418 The telephone records establish that the accused arrived at the Highbury Hotel around 9:43 pm. He met Ms Edwards there as well as the prosecution witness, Mr Arace. 419 By about 10:00 pm, the phones of both the accused and Ms Edwards moved from the Highbury Hotel area and then connected with various antennae consistent with them travelling south-west along Lower North East Road and then east along Gorge Road. At around 10:15 pm both phones connected with the Hope Valley West-O base station 90-degree antenna and thereafter connected consistently with this antenna until 10:53:52 pm. This antenna covered areas of the Park. 420 CCTV shows the accused and Ms Edwards returning to 17 Ferguson Street at 11:19:13 pm on the accused’s motorbike. -- 63 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 62 Movement of Toni’s phone 421 As mentioned earlier Toni’s phone was taken during the attack. It was operating at the time of the attack and continued to operate until later that evening. The telephone records establish the general location of the phone at particular times. 422 Throughout the day on 25 April 2023, Toni’s phone continued to connect with the Davoren Park base station 25-degree antenna.49 This was consistent with Toni’s evidence as to her movements that afternoon. At 8:36:07 pm on 25 April 2023, Toni’s phone again connected with the Davoren Park base station 25-degree antenna. At 8:36:46 pm Toni’s phone connected with the Davoren Park South base station 347-degree antenna.50 These connections are consistent with the phone moving from 18 Small Crescent and travelling south perhaps along Peachey Road. Dr Sorell could not specify precisely the phone’s route of travel. 423 Toni’s phone connected with the Salisbury DSTO base station 295-degree antenna at 8:41:05 pm and then the Salisbury DSTO base station 200-degree antenna at 8:41:43 pm. Dr Sorell stated that these connections were consistent with the phone travelling south on West Avenue and turning east on to Purling Avenue. 424 At 8:42:44 pm, Toni’s phone connected with the Elizabeth South Water Tower base station 245-degree antenna. The accused’s phone reattached to the network at the Edinburgh West base station (adjacent to the Salisbury DSTO base station51) three seconds before at 8:42:41 pm. This is consistent with Toni’s phone being in the accused’s possession at that time. The accused admitted in evidence that by this time he was in possession of Toni’s phone. 425 At 8:42:51 pm, Toni’s phone connected again with the Salisbury DSTO base station 200-degree antenna consistent with the phone moving to an area where this signal overlapped with that of the Elizabeth South Water Tower base station. Toni’s phone was south of Purling Avenue as it runs south-east to north-west and west of Purling Avenue and Bagster Road and the northern end of Bagster Road itself. The accused did not dispute that at this time he still had possession of Toni’s phone and accepted that he was in this general area. 426 The prosecution submitted that the telephone records establish that the attacker took Toni’s phone and travelled south with the phone between about 8:36:07 pm and 8:41:05 pm to 8:41:43 pm when the phone connected to the Salisbury DSTO base station. That is the attacker left 18 Small Crescent and moving at speed travelled in a southerly direction passing the intersection West Avenue and Purling Avenue. Toni’s phone travelled approximately nine km 49 See Exhibit P68A, page 7 for the relevant base stations and antennae. The connections were relatively infrequent which indicate that Toni’s phone was not used very much or alternatively that the phone was connected to domestic Wi-Fi and it was simply providing some back-up in the background. 50 See Exhibit P68A, map 9. 51 See Exhibit P68A, map 10. -- 64 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 63 in a period of approximately five to five and half minutes. The prosecution submitted that the journey of approximately nine km would typically take 10 to 12 minutes if obeying the speed limits.52 427 The prosecution submitted that given the phone has travelled this distance in about five minutes it was highly unlikely that the attacker had time to undertake tasks such as changing clothes, changing vehicles and stopping to have a meeting with the accused. The timing, the prosecution submitted, was inconsistent with Beau being the attacker. 428 The prosecution also submitted that the Davoren Park base station 25-degree antenna, which Toni’s phone connected to before moving south, would be unlikely to provide coverage to 61 Graeber Road as that address lay outside the antenna’s coverage.53 Further given how quickly Toni’s phone was travelling south reinforced the inference that it did not travel to 61 Graeber Road. 429 The speed at which Toni’s phone travelled from 18 Small Crescent to past the Salisbury DSTO base station is consistent with speeds at which the accused was detected by speed camera namely at 8:17:58 pm, travelling 99 km per hour and at 8:48:59 pm, travelling 156 km per hour.54 430 The accused submitted that the evidence did not exclude the possibility that the Davoren Park base station 25-degree antenna provided coverage to 61 Graeber Road. That is the accused submitted that the movement of Toni’s phone did not rule out the possibility that Beau was the attacker as the tracked locations could not exclude the possibility of the phone being at 61 Graeber Road for a short time. 431 While it is correct that the Davoren Park base station 25-degree antenna did provide coverage to 61 Graeber Road, the timing of later connections is inconsistent with the phone travelling to 61 Graeber Road even for a short time. 432 The accused admitted that he took Toni’s phone to the Park and set it alight along with other items before he and Ms Edwards returned to 17 Ferguson Street. 433 Toni’s phone only connected to a few base stations after 10:00 pm consistent with Toni’s phone being stationary. Between 10:15 pm and 10:20 pm her phone connected with antennae of the Hope Valley and Hope Valley Reservoir base stations both of which provide coverage to the Park. The last record for Toni’s phone was a connection to the Hope Valley Reservoir base station at 11:18:18 pm. 434 The telephone records are consistent with Toni’s phone being taken to the Park and burnt. 52 This distance and travel time was based on Exhibit P80, page 3. 53 Exhibit P68A, map 9. 54 Exhibit P71, pages 15 and 17. -- 65 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 64 The accused’s record of interview 435 Brevet Sergeant Coulthard gave evidence that on Wednesday, 26 April 2023, in company with Detective Sergeant Rusul and Detective Brevet Sergeant Duldig, he arrested the accused at 8:25 pm at his residence at 17 Ferguson Street. The arrest and initial conversation were recorded on video and the accused was conveyed to the Elizabeth Police Station. A formal record of interview was conducted and video recorded in an interview room at the Elizabeth Police Station. The actual video recordings of his arrest and record of interview were tendered along with a transcript of the recordings (to be used as an aide memoire).55 I remind myself that I must rely only on what I hear on the recording and the transcript is simply an aide memoire. 436 In essence the accused denied being involved in the attack on Toni and Neil. The prosecution submitted that the record of interview needs to be considered against the background of the later audio recordings of phone calls between the accused and Ms Edwards. The prosecution submitted that the record of interview demonstrates the beginning of a pattern of behaviour of the accused attempting to learn what information the police possessed, and then developing an explanation for the information. The prosecution submitted that the accused, in the interview and subsequent telephone recordings, changed his version of events depending on what information he understands the police, at that time, possess. 437 The accused’s version of events that he gave in evidence, namely that he received various items from Beau, does not appear in either the record of interview or the prison calls. The prosecution submitted that I should not accept the accused’s version of events given in evidence even as a reasonable possibility. 438 In relation to the arrest, having introduced himself, Brevet Sergeant Coulthard informed the accused that he was under arrest on suspicion of being involved in two counts of attempted murder. The accused’s responded, “Who, who”. The accused said, “I haven’t done nothing”. Despite Brevet Sergeant Coulthard telling the accused that he would give him details of the alleged offending when they arrived at the Elizabeth Police Station, the accused continued to press him for details. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard eventually told him it related to the occupants of the premises at 18 Small Crescent. 439 During his arrest the accused asked a number of questions trying to ascertain what evidence the police had at that time. He asked, “Has someone said something I’ve done something or?”. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard responded that he would go through it during the interview. 440 The accused asked if he could speak to his partner. He was told he could do so before they left. The accused then asked, “Anyone else getting charged?”. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard replied, “Not at this stage no”. When giving evidence 55 Exhibit P69; Exhibit P69A; Exhibit P69B. -- 66 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 65 the accused said that his question was aiming to see whether his brother Beau would be charged. 441 I reject his explanation. In context, he was worried his partner Ms Edwards would be charged. 442 The accused was interviewed by Brevet Sergeant Coulthard and Detective Brevet Sergeant Cheetham at the Elizabeth Police Station Cell Complex commencing at 12:18 am on 27 April 2023. The interview was video recorded.56 443 The accused was informed that Toni and Neil had been violently assaulted at their home address of 18 Small Crescent between 8:30 pm on 25 April 2023 and 3:30 pm on 26 April 2023 and that they were both in intensive care at the RAH. When asked, “What can you tell me about that incident”, the accused replied, “I learnt it from you”. 444 The accused was told that a witness heard a female scream on the night of 25 April 2023 and a motorbike rode off shortly afterwards. He was asked, “Are you the owner of a motorbike?” to which he replied, “Nup”. 445 Brevet Sergeant Coulthard asked the accused, “Is there a motorbike currently located at your home address?” to which the accused replied, “Maybe one in the shed”. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard asked, “And then what can you tell me about that bike?” to which the accused replied, “I sat on it earlier tonight – that’s about it”. 446 The accused hinted that he could prove that he was at “a particular Pub” that evening. 447 The accused conceded, when giving evidence, that he lied to the police during these interchanges. He did own the motorbike in the shed and had ridden it on the evening of 25 April 2023. The reason he gave for lying to the police is that he had, earlier on 25 April 2023, filled the motorbike with petrol and then drove off from the petrol station without paying. I do not accept that explanation for his lie. 448 Later in the interview the accused was shown a photograph of the motorbike taken at 8:48 pm on 25 April 2023 by activation of the speed camera situated on Diment Road, Salisbury North. He was told that the motorbike which had been located in the garage at his house had been photographed doing a speed of 156 km per hour. When the police suggested that it may be him riding the motorbike the accused did not admit that fact asserting that he couldn’t see clearly what the rider was wearing given the poor quality of photograph. This was an example of the accused giving an evasive answer. At trial the accused conceded that he was in fact riding the motorbike at that time. 56 See Exhibit P69. Exhibit P69B is the aide memoire transcript to the record of interview. -- 67 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 66 449 The accused did not tell the police the truth during this interchange. 450 The prosecution also relied on the fact that the accused towards the end of the interview asked questions of the police clearly intended to ascertain what specific information they had obtained. He questioned the police as to whether the motorbike alleged to have been involved in the attack on 25 April 2023 had been positively confirmed. The police told him that the witness had heard a motorbike, not seen it. 451 The prosecution submitted that the accused’s approach during the interview in ascertaining what information the police had was integral to his strategy of concocting a story to explain that information. I deal in detail with this issue later in these reasons. Alleged conversation before the video interview commenced 452 When Brevet Sergeant Coulthard was cross-examined it was put by counsel for the accused that he had a discussion with the accused as they were making their way to the interview room. It was suggested that the accused said to him, “This is my brother, Beau”. It was put to Brevet Sargeant Coulthard that he responded, “what do you mean?” and the accused said, “Beau did this, not me”. 453 Brevet Sergeant Coulthard said he did not recall such a conversation. He said he did not recall there being any unrecorded conversation. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard said that if the accused had said anything to him that night about Beau he would have made a note of it and would have raised it with him in the recorded interview. 454 When the accused gave evidence his version of the alleged conversation differed from what was put to Brevet Sergeant Coulthard. The accused stated that after he had arrived at the Elizabeth Police Station, but prior to his video recorded interview, he told Brevet Sergeant Coulthard that “This is Beau”. He alleged that while outside the interview room, Brevet Sergeant Coulthard then asked him, “Are you willing to put it on, like, tape?”. The accused said that he replied, “no”. 455 The accused further added, that once sitting inside the interview room, Brevet Sergeant Coulthard asked him, “You said something outside the room, are you willing to elaborate on it?”. 456 While what was put to Brevet Sergeant Coulthard during cross-examination is somewhat different to the evidence the accused eventually gave, nothing turns on that point. The relevance of the conversation was the accused telling the police that Beau was the offender and that he said that to the police that even before he was formally interviewed. 457 I reject his evidence that such a conversation occurred. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard was a transparently honest, credible, reliable and hardworking investigating officer. I accept Brevet Sergeant Coulthard’s evidence that nothing -- 68 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 67 like that was said. It is almost inconceivable having been given such information that Brevet Sergeant Coulthard would not follow that up with questions specifically about Beau during the interview. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard said that had such a comment been made by the accused, he or his partner would have made a note of it, then re-activated the camera, cautioned the accused and then questioned him about the comment the accused made off camera. I accept his evidence about that. 458 I find that the accused lied on oath when giving evidence about that suggested conversation. I find he fabricated the conversation and did so to support what he alleges now about Beau’s involvement. His lie is an attempt to make it appear that he blamed Beau immediately upon his arrest. 459 In making this finding I am not simply relying on my acceptance of Brevet Sergeant Coulthard’s evidence. It is based also in my overall assessment of the accused’s credibility and reliability which I discuss later. 460 Before turning to the evidence relating to the accused’s telephone calls from prison with Ms Edwards, I note much of the prosecution case involved evidence relevant to the accused’s movements on 25 April 2023 and up until the time he was arrested. It became apparent during the prosecution case at trial that much of this evidence was not in dispute. Eventually the accused gave evidence and purported to explain the prosecution evidence. 461 As mentioned earlier the accused’s defence centred on the allegation that his brother Beau, not he, had committed the offence. That is, the prosecution had the onus of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the accused who attacked Toni and Neil and therefore excluding even as a reasonable possibility that Beau committed the offences. The prison calls 462 The prosecution tendered audio recordings of many calls between the accused and Ms Edwards after the accused had been arrested and was in prison. These are colloquially known as “ARUNTA calls”. Prior to the phone call connection, participants are warned that the prison calls will be recorded. Thus, both the accused and Ms Edwards knew the calls were being recorded and that it was likely that the investigating officers would listen to the recordings. Otherwise, there would have been no need for them to discuss what were false alibis. 463 To understand the relevance of the prison calls to the prosecution case it is necessary to understand the accused’s evidence as to his movements during the evening of 25 April 2023 in particular from about 8:00 pm. Little of his evidence-in-chief is consistent with the content of the telephone calls with Ms Edwards. Evidence of the accused as to his movements on 25 April 2023 464 I will deal with the accused’s evidence-in-chief first. -- 69 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 68 465 The accused said that between 7:50 pm and 8:15 pm he received a FaceTime call from Beau. Beau gave him directions where they were to meet. Beau said, “Go over the train tracks, turn left at the big roundabout, follow that up ... You’ll see me”. The accused followed the directions. The meeting was by the old Holden factory. The accused said he left 17 Ferguson Street at about 8:17 pm.57 He based this time on what he saw in the speed camera activations. 466 The accused arrived at the meeting place at around 8:25 pm to 8:30 pm. Beau wasn’t there when he arrived. The accused smoked a cigarette, maybe two, while waiting. Beau arrived in his car which was a green Holden. Beau got out of his car, walked over to him and handed him a clear bag, roughly the size of a shoebox, with items in it. The accused said in evidence that he thought Beau got the bag off the back seat of his car. He said they didn’t talk much. Beau said, “Get rid of this” and then said, “I gotta go”. Later in his evidence-in-chief, the accused said Beau also handed him some identification cards at this meeting, separate to the bag. I deal with his evidence on this topic later in these reasons. 467 The accused replied, “No worries”. The accused took off his backpack and put the bag into the backpack, zipped it up and left on his motorbike. 468 As Beau was handing him the bag he asked where the accused was going. The accused replied that he was going “back to mum’s”. Beau said, “Get her to turn off the cameras”. 469 The accused stopped his motorbike, rang his mother and then sent her a text which said, “Turn the cameras off at the pair point”. The message was sent at 8:46 pm. The accused said the message contained an error and it should have read “power point” not “pair point”. 470 The accused said that he had his mobile phone with him that night. He wasn’t sure if it was charged. When he left home at 8:17 pm he put the phone in his backpack. When he got the phone out of his backpack to send the text to his mother the screen was black. He said he needed to reset the phone which he did. The accused said he then rang his mother. 471 The call records show that the accused rang his mother at 8:45:32 pm with the call lasting 29 seconds. Twelve seconds later, at 8:46:13 pm, he then sent the text message mentioned above. The accused said he thought he arrived at his mother’s place around 8:50 pm. 472 The accused said that before he met Beau that evening he had planned to go to his mother’s place and pick up a motorbike battery and some cannabis. When he arrived at his mother’s place the accused picked up the motorbike battery which was on a charger, and picked up the cannabis. He told his mother that he had “just 57 Exhibit P77, Clips 21 – 23 depicts the accused leaving 17 Ferguson Street on his motorbike at around 8:15:57 pm. -- 70 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 69 seen Beau” and that he had to “get rid of some stuff for him”. His mother had a hesitant look on her face. 473 The accused left after about 10 minutes and headed back to 17 Ferguson Street. He thought he got back around 9:00 pm. By this time, he had contact with Ms Edwards who was at the Highbury Hotel. The accused said that Ms Edwards had sent him a message saying, “Make sure you bring the bike right up here, pick me up, grab a couple of jumpers”. 474 The telephone records show that there was only one message from Ms Edwards at 9:19:15 pm which said, “Promise me you come on the bike I’m at the Highbury Hotel”. There was no mention of jumpers in the text. There was however a subsequent voice call between Ms Edwards and the accused at 9:26:09 pm which lasted 42 seconds. 475 After putting his motorbike out the back of the house he went inside and had a shower. This is consistent with Ms Gidding’s evidence. The accused said that earlier in the day he had been working on the motorbike, so he needed to have a shower before going out. He said he changed his top but was wearing the same pants. The accused then rode his motorbike to the Highbury Hotel arriving around 9:30 pm to 9:45 pm. 476 The accused said he couldn’t immediately find Ms Edwards but they eventually caught up. He spoke to Mr Arace when at the Highbury Hotel. 477 After a short time, Ms Edwards took the accused’s backpack and put it on and the two of them left the Highbury Hotel on his motorbike. The accused told her that they were going for a ride up Gorge Road but he did not tell her what was in the backpack. They stopped at a service station on Gorge Road for some “drinks” but he also bought a small bottle of “fire accelerant”. Although he didn’t know what Beau had given him, he wanted to destroy any DNA on the bag as he had touched it. 478 With reference to aerial photographs tendered by the prosecution,58 the accused identified a car park at “Amber Gully” in the Park. Ms Edwards stayed on the motorbike. He got off and said, “Wait here I’ve just got to go get rid of something”. He took the backpack and hopped over a fence. The accused walked on a dirt trail towards Amber Gully and then walked into the scrub. He found a clearing, gathered some sticks and took the bag that Beau handed him out of his backpack. He then placed the bag on the ground underneath some sticks and poured accelerant on the pile. He didn’t look to see what was in the bag. He did not know Toni’s mobile phone was in the bag. He watched the fire for a short time to make sure it didn’t spread. 479 Other than the bag, Beau had handed him some identification cards earlier that evening. Beau had said, “Here’s the cunts’ IDs”. He had put them in his 58 Exhibit P45. -- 71 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 70 pocket. As he was leaving the Park, he realised he still had the identification cards in his pocket. He walked back to the motorbike and grabbed Ms Edwards’ phone. He then walked back to the fire, took photographs of the identification cards using Ms Edwards’ phone and then burnt them. He said he didn’t use his phone as it was “playing up”. They then rode back to 17 Ferguson Street. He was arrested the next day. 480 The prosecution submitted that the relevance of the prison calls lay in the way the accused changed the narrative of his defence depending on what information he became aware of during the police investigation. The prosecution submitted that the accused told many lies during these conversations. Despite his change of narrative around his defence he failed to mention what he now relies upon namely a meeting with his brother, Beau, where he obtained the items he eventually destroyed at the Park. He also did not mention during the calls that he had difficulties with his phone that night. 481 The accused was cross-examined extensively on the content of the prison calls. 482 It must be remembered that the accused had participated in the record of interview with Brevet Sergeant Coulthard prior to these telephone calls. Prison calls 483 As mentioned, the accused’s telephone calls from prison with Ms Edwards, after he was arrested, were recorded.59 The fact that the calls are recorded is announced by a recorded message before each call. Having listened to the recordings I have no doubt that the accused knew the police would listen to the recordings and attempted, with the knowledge of Ms Edwards, to put before the police a version of events he hoped would assist his defence. 30 April 2023 at 1:50 pm 484 The phone calls upon which the prosecution rely commenced on 30 April 2023, only five days after the attack. During the conversation Ms Edwards states, “Well honey, you were with me the whole time”. The accused replied, “I know”. 485 The accused when cross-examined on this answer gave confusing evidence. While admitting that it was a lie the accused initially said he was “not sure” why he lied; he said he had just been put in custody and was stressed. On further questioning he said he “regularly” just agrees with what Ms Edwards said. 486 As the accused later admitted in his evidence both he and Ms Edwards knew that this was not the true position. The accused admitted that he lied. Given they both knew it was not true the only reason for saying it was to inform the police of 59 Exhibit P84 is the USB containing recordings of the prison telephone calls. Exhibit P84A is a transcript of the prison telephone calls to be used as an aide memoire to the actual recordings. -- 72 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 71 the intended alibi. At the time of this call the accused only knew what the police had told him during the interview. 16 June 2023 at 9:26 am 487 During this call, in relation to the Tuesday night, 25 April 2023, the accused told Ms Edwards that “One of the Statements is saying that they heard a motorbike at Eight Thirty”. It is clear that by this time the accused knew there was a witness statement to this effect. The accused asked Ms Edwards if she had given the police a statement to say that she was with him that night. Ms Edwards said that she had not. 488 The accused then stated: Because I want it, because it, I think as soon as I can give ‘em my alibi and I can give ‘em access to my phone to show ‘em that Beau sent me the messages saying that he wanted to hurt them and, and show that on my phone that I didn’t go anywhere near the house. 489 There are three important parts to the accused’s statement in this call. First, he plainly wanted the police to know that he had an alibi namely he was home with Ms Edwards at the relevant time. He intended that she lie on his behalf. He did not know at this stage that the police would obtain CCTV footage of him leaving on his motorbike from 17 Ferguson Street shortly before 8:30 pm.60 490 The accused gave evidence that he didn’t want Ms Edwards or anyone to lie about this issue. He stated in evidence that he knew that she wasn’t with him all night and that it was more than likely he was thinking at the time that she was with him “late last night to the early hours of the morning”. This answer in evidence was disingenuous as later in the call the accused says, “one billion percent I was home at Eight Thirty” … “Because” … “we put the kids to bed at Eight Thirty” … “I remember”. Obviously, Ms Edwards also must have known this was untrue. 491 The content of this call is inconsistent with the accused’s earlier evidence that he just often agrees with Ms Edwards. 492 Plainly the accused knew that the police would listen to the recording of the calls and he wanted to give himself an alibi for 8:30 pm. He was prepared to encourage Ms Edwards to lie for him. I find that the accused lied both in the phone call and when giving evidence. 493 The second part of his statement relates to showing the text messages sent by Beau saying that he, Beau, wanted to hurt Toni and Neil. That is, from as least as early as this call the accused wanted the police to know that Beau was the offender. There was no mention of the alleged meeting with Beau immediately after the attack on Toni and Neil. 60 CCTV footage captures the accused leaving 17 Ferguson Street on his motorbike around 8:15:57 pm. -- 73 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 72 494 Thirdly, there is reference to showing the police his phone to show he didn’t go anywhere near 18 Small Crescent that night. The accused knew of course that his phone was off at the relevant time. It is also likely a reference to his Google Timeline. I will deal with that issue later in these reasons. 495 If there was any doubt of the accused’s intent during the phone call of 16 June 2023 to have Ms Edwards lie and support his purported alibi it is dispelled by the content of the call on 21 June 2023. 21 June 2023 at 9:55 am 496 During the call on 21 June 2023, the accused said, “they can’t convict something on someone they, something they didn’t do”. Ms Edwards responded, “You got stuck looking after the kids”. The accused replied, “Yeah that’s exactly right. Exactly” … “And the only time I left was to come and pick you up. That was the only time I left home”. 497 The accused in evidence agreed that this was lie. Even on the account he gave in evidence the accused had left home to meet Beau and had been to his mother’s house. 498 The accused’s explanation in evidence for the lie was that he was trying to distance himself from having anything to do with meeting Beau. When challenged in cross-examination that his explanation could not be correct, given that he wanted the police to see Beau’s threatening messages, he said that he couldn’t remember what he was thinking at the time. This was an evasive answer. 28 June 2023 at 8:25am 499 During this call the accused tells Ms Edwards that he “got all the paperwork yesterday” and that “There is literally nothing on me”. He said, “There is no evidence saying that I done it. At all”. It was only after these comments that Ms Edwards told the accused the police knew that he wasn’t at 17 Ferguson Street “the whole time”. She said, “The Detective said they got evidence of you ah, coming and going from my house, the time that you were meant to be looking after the kids”. The accused responded, “That’s when I left to go pick up you”. Ms Edwards said, “Well they saying there was evidence before that”. The accused said, “that cant put me in. Because remember, I rang, I, I do pick up weed as well”. The accused quickly terminated the call saying he would “call [Ms Edwards] back in a little bit”. 28 June 2023 at 8:47 am 500 The accused rang back about 20 minutes later. The tone of this call was markedly different to the start of the earlier call. When Ms Edwards asked, “how are you?” the accused replied, “Alright - average now”. Ms Edwards said, “I know, I’m sorry, I, I had to tell you”. Clearly Ms Edwards knew and had always known that she was not at home with the accused looking after the kids between at least between 8:15 pm to 8:45 pm. Now that the police had evidence that the -- 74 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 73 accused had left the house at the relevant time and her alibi was demonstrably false. 501 Later in the conversation Ms Edwards asked the accused if he took the car or the bike. He replied that he “took the bike”. 502 The accused later said, “I did leave home I think, to look for you when you first left”. He later said, “It was either that or I went and got weed”. 503 Plainly both the accused and Ms Edwards knew that what they had been saying in earlier calls was now demonstrably untrue. 23 July 2023 at 8:31 am 504 During this call there is a discussion about the “photos of all the pictures” … “Like the maps” being sent to Nick Vadasz (“Mr Vadasz”), the accused’s solicitor. It is not entirely clear from this recording alone what the discussion is about, but given the content of later calls this is likely a reference to the Google Timeline on the accused’s phone being sent to Mr Vadasz. 505 Before returning to the prison telephone calls, it is necessary to analyse the prosecution evidence concerning the Google Maps feature, Google Timeline (“Timeline”). Google Timeline 506 The prosecution called Dr Grant Wigley (“Dr Wigley”) to explain the operation of the Timeline. 507 Dr Wigley is currently employed by the University of South Australia as the programme director of the Bachelor of Information Technology in Networking and Cybersecurity. Dr Wigley has a PhD in computer operating systems gaining extensive knowledge in the design and implementation of operating systems on computer devices. He explained that Timeline is a feature of Goole Maps. He is familiar with Google Maps through his research and material available to him and he has conducted experiments to test the way in which Google Maps operates and behaves. 508 There was no challenge to his qualifications or his evidence. I accept his evidence. 509 Google Maps is an internet mapping service. One of its features is Timeline which records the movements and location of the device when it is switched on. It records past events and saves them to the device. Timeline is a feature which must be switched on to track the movements of the phone. 510 Timeline is populated on the changing of coordinates. If the device receives the same coordinates over a certain time period it assumes the device has not -- 75 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 74 moved. Once the coordinates begin to change the device assumes it is moving and it will update its coordinates. 511 If the operator is using Google Maps with a set location the device reads satellite coordinates regularly and is therefore highly accurate. If Timeline is operating in the background, it is less accurate, updating every five or 10 minutes. 512 Timeline makes a “best guess” as to whether the operator is walking, cycling, taking public transport or driving. It will also use its previous history. 513 Importantly, Timeline can be easily edited and therefore altered to show a misleading Timeline. For example, a location can be removed or added and the time spent at a location can also be deleted or added. It is not possible for someone looking at the Timeline to determine whether the Timeline has been edited. It is possible that Google could analyse the data to see whether it has been edited. 514 If the device is switched off it no longer receives any location updates. Once it is switched back on it will continue the Timeline as if nothing has happened. 515 I return to the prison calls. 15 August 2023 at 1:22 pm 516 Ms Edwards tells the accused that the detectives “want the maps”. During the call Ms Edwards is attempting to start the accused’s computer but the program will not open. The accused tells Ms Edwards to have the detectives bring his phone to her and he will give her the password so they can access his maps. The accused asserts he had the evidence to prove that he “didn’t do it”. 517 The accused also tells Ms Edwards that he wants her to “show ‘em”, the detectives, the messages that Beau sent that said that he was “a dog” and that he “deserve[s] to be dead”. Again, despite the accused suggesting that Beau may have committed the offending there was no mention of his meeting with him on the evening of the attack. 518 The accused tells Ms Edwards that it is “good news” about the maps. 15 August 2023 at 2:17 pm 519 Ms Edwards tells the accused that his computer is “not opening up” so she will need his Google log-in and password and will log in using her computer. There is a discussion about the accused’s phone and the fact that the police have been unable open it. The accused says that he wants the police to access his phone “because there’s stuff on them that, that will show that I’m innocent”. 16 August 2023 at 8:25 am 520 Ms Edwards tells the accused that she got his computer to work and that she has “got the maps up”. The accused said, “All the maps show that I wasn’t there – Correct?”. Ms Edwards responded, “Correct”. -- 76 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 75 521 The accused then says, “And remember how we went up in The Hills that night and we went up and it” … “was just too cold, so we headed home?”. Ms Edwards responded, “Yes, yes I remember that”. The accused said, “We went up Gorge Road, then it was too cold so we just ended up heading home”. Ms Edwards said “Yep” … “I don’t think that shows that”. The accused says, “as long as it shows that I wasn’t there over, during those times”. 522 The accused asks Ms Edwards to give Mr Vadasz a ring and say, “‘Thomas has, have got maps to show that he wasn’t there at the time and he didn’t do it’” … “And ‘the Detectives want to see it’”. 523 A problem then arises with the accused’s computer, and the accused tells Ms Edwards that he will ring her back. 16 August 2023 at 9:23 am 524 Ms Edwards tells the accused that she will put the phone on speaker because Selena “got the maps up”. Selena is Ms Edwards’ niece. There is a discussion with Selena about the Timeline. 525 The accused is adamant that the maps be shown to the detectives. Ms Edwards and Selena went through the Timeline of 25 April 2023 with the accused. 16 August 2023 at 10:03 am 526 After having reviewed the contents of his Timeline with Selena and Ms Edwards in the previous call, the accused tells Ms Edwards that he did leave 17 Ferguson Street at around 8:45 pm that night and went to his mum’s to pick up weed. 16 August 2023 at 10:34 am 527 During the call the accused and Ms Edwards discuss the fact that the Timeline is missing some events. The accused says that he needs his phone to provide details of events not recorded on his Timeline. The accused also urges Ms Edwards to let the police see the messages that Beau sent to him about wanting “to hurt them”. Again, there is no mention of the alleged meeting with Beau. Discussion 528 For Ms Edwards to provide the police with his Timeline, the accused provided her with the log in and password details for his Google account. Ms Edwards on 16 August 2023 and at the accused’s request, provided Brevet Sergeant Coulthard with a video on her phone which showed a computer screen exhibiting the accused’s Timeline on 25 April 2023. Brevet Sergeant Coulthard -- 77 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 76 took a copy of the video and also made four screenshots from the video. The screenshots were tendered.61 529 One of the screenshots of the accused’s Timeline shows, for 25 April 2023, a recording of “17 Ferguson St” at “4.52PM-9.28PM”.62 If those times are accurate, it supported the accused’s then version of events that he did not go near 18 Small Crescent and could not have been the attacker. 530 The prosecution submitted that the accused edited his Timeline and provided the police with false information. 531 The accused allowed his Timeline to be produced to the police knowing it was inaccurate. That must be so as at the time of these telephone calls he was aware, as he gave evidence later, that his mobile did not work between 8:17:31 pm until 8:42:41 pm. His evidence is that his phone simply stopped working. Thus, his Timeline was not working for the relevant period. Further he gave evidence at the trial of his movements that evening. His Timeline, if not altered, would have shown some, if not most, of his movements that night. For example, the Timeline does not show his attendance at 5 Stone Court, his mother’s house, on 25 April 2023. He also now admits that he was not home at 17 Ferguson Street for the time period shown on his Timeline. The Timeline produced also did not record the time the accused later admitted he spent at the Park. A screenshot of the accused’s Timeline shows that after the accused was at the Highbury Hotel, he travelled for 28.8 km (1 hour, 19 minutes) by motorcycle before returning to 17 Ferguson Street by 11:20 pm.63 This screenshot could be used to support the accused’s narrative from the earlier call that they went “up in The Hills” that night, but came back home because it was too cold. That, the accused admitted in evidence, was a lie. 532 The accused in his discussion with Ms Edwards in the prison calls is confident that the Timeline will support his then narrative hence the urgency to have it produced to the police. He must have known that it was inaccurate given that he now admits travelling extensively, and using his phone, at the relevant times. 533 What is telling about the Timeline evidence is the confidence with which the accused had, during the phone conversations, that the Timeline would show he hadn’t left the house at 17 Ferguson Street. He knew he had in fact left the premises and travelled some considerable distances over a period of approximately one hour. Even if only a portion of his travels were recorded in the Timeline it would demonstrate he had left the premises. Not only did the Timeline not record any of his now acknowledged travels somehow it falsely recorded that his phone had not left 17 Ferguson Street for some hours. Yet strangely the phone accurately recorded his movements to his arrival at the Highbury Hotel later that evening. He 61 Exhibit P67. 62 Exhibit P67, page 3. 63 Exhibit P67, page 4. -- 78 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 77 could not possibly have thought that the Timeline would be in error and the error would precisely mirror his lies. Such a suggestion is fanciful. The only explanation for the accused’s confidence that the Timeline would support his lies is that he knew it had been changed to falsely support his purported alibi. 534 When giving evidence, the accused denied altering the Timeline or directing anyone to alter the Timeline on his behalf. That answer cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. He must have altered the Timeline himself before he was arrested or had someone later it later on his behalf. To suggest that the Timeline was simply “not accurate” or somehow was altered without his knowledge to coincidentally confirm his then proposed false narrative beggars belief. It could not have been altered without someone having access to his phone or Google account and password. The accused clearly altered his Timeline or instructed someone to do it by providing access to his Google account. I find that the accused not only deliberately misled the police by providing the Timeline, but he lied on oath when giving evidence. 535 As the intent of the accused was to provide the police with his Timeline to convince them that did not go near 18 Small Crescent at the relevant time it had the effect of casting the blame on Beau. The accused must have known that this false information would have that effect. This is confirmed in subsequent calls when the accused refers to some of Beau’s text messages as his “golden ticket”. Despite his discussion with Ms Edwards about the “golden ticket”, he said nothing about his alleged involvement or meeting with Beau that evening. 536 I return to the phone calls. 16 August 2023 at 1:31 pm 537 Ms Edwards advised the accused she is about to take the information to the police. 16 August 2023 at 2:06 pm 538 The accused calls Ms Edwards while she is at the police station. He reminds Ms Edwards to tell the police about the message Beau had sent him about him saying “he wanted” to hurt them. 16 August 2023 at 3:34 pm 539 Ms Edwards discusses with the accused what happened at the Elizabeth Police Station. She reports that the police “got all of where you were”, referring to his Timeline, on 25 April 2023. The accused said that he had spoken with Mr Vadasz. Ms Edwards told him that it was “looking good” that the charges would be dropped. 540 The accused told Ms Edwards that “no forensics are going to come back” and that he had nothing to hide. -- 79 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 78 541 Ms Edwards informed the accused that she forgot to mention Beau’s messages. The accused told her that the messages are a “golden ticket” and that it “gives them another suspect”. 26 August 2023 at 2:17 pm 542 The content of this call is revealing in numerous ways. 543 Ms Edwards advises the accused that she has just been arrested for an “Assisting Offence”.64 She tells the accused that “They got the burnt evidence”. This is clearly a reference to the fire the accused started in the Park on 25 April 2023, where items stolen from 18 Small Crescent were burnt. 544 The accused asked her “Where from?”. There was no query about what the evidence was or the fact that it was burnt. Ms Edwards responds, “I don’t know. They found the photos on my phone” … “They reckon I altered the timeframe”. 545 The accused was concerned as to how this would affect his position, asking Ms Edwards, “And what’s the go with me then?”. Ms Edwards said, “Well you know?” ... “what do you think?” ... “I didn’t. I didn’t put you in anything!”. The accused responded, “Yeah I know, I know but what, what”. 546 Ms Edwards told the accused that “They got everything”, to which the accused responded, “What do you mean ‘they got everything’? Like they haven’t”. 547 Ms Edwards responded that “They know where we were” and “they know in the timeframe there was a gap”. “They” is clearly a reference to the police. Ms Edwards also made reference to “The Park”. 548 Ms Edwards then became extremely distressed. The accused attempted to calm her down. 549 After she calmed down the accused said, “there’s no change in the timeline. You can’t do that”. Ms Edwards responds, “Yeah there is. They know” … “that we’re at the” … “Conservation Park” … “They know” … “that the time lost”. 550 It is at this stage of the conversation that accused is clearly concerned about where the conversation is heading. He tells Ms Edwards to hang up but she doesn’t. 551 Ms Edwards continues talking and tells the accused that she is “going down for the photos on [her] phone” … “Because those fucking photos were in their fucking wallet!”. She then states, “what dumb-arse would fucking take them out of their fucking wallet?”. The accused responds, “I don’t know honey”. Ms Edwards says, “You know that’s just fucked. You know you don’t collect fucking belongings!”. 64 Ms Edwards was arrested at about 1:00 pm on 26 August 2023 and released on bail. -- 80 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 79 552 The accused’s response is telling. He says, “Honey we still got to remember not to talk on the phone”. As the previous calls illustrate the accused and Ms Edwards went to great lengths, when talking on the phone, to intentionally construct a false narrative. When Ms Edwards is discussing the latest development including an accusation that “you don’t collect fucking belongings” the accused responds that they should not talk on the phone. 553 The implication arising from Ms Edwards’ comments was an accusation that the accused was dumb for having collected belongings. The accused does not disavow this accusation.65 Further contrary to his later evidence he does not claim during the call that the person who was dumb for taking the belongings was Beau. Rather, his response was to tell Ms Edwards to remember to not talk on the phone. 554 It is clear that the accused was concerned about the content of the exchange and in that in her emotional state Ms Edwards was saying or about to say things that would incriminate him. When tackled in cross-examination about this aspect of the call, the accused’s answers were fanciful. 555 Despite the content of the call the accused in evidence stated that he and Ms Edwards did not burn the evidence together. That is, he maintained that he burnt the items stolen from 18 Small Crescent in Ms Edwards’ absence. I do not accept his evidence about that. The photos of the identification cards taken from 18 Small Crescent were found on her phone, not his. Ms Edwards knew she was implicated in this aspect of the case. There was no assertion by her during the call that she had nothing to do with taking the photographs and burning of evidence. Nor does the accused assert that in the calls. 556 When giving evidence the accused claimed he was not wanting Ms Edwards to shut up, or to stop talking on the phone. He said it was a “stupid comment”, “a stupid thing to say” considering he spoke often on the phone. He further said he did not know what he would have been thinking at the time. Further in evidence the accused said that Ms Edwards knew he was getting rid of stuff, but may not have known he was burning anything because she did not see him buy the fire accelerant, or have any conversation about burning anything. 557 The accused’s responses in cross-examination were disingenuous and simply not honest. I reject his evidence on this topic. He lied in his evidence. 558 Ms Edwards’ arrest was plainly an unexpected development. The calm, and on occasions artificial or contrived nature of earlier calls disappeared. There was no face-to-face visit between Ms Edwards’ arrest and the call to discuss this development. As the prosecution submitted the accused was faced with Ms Edwards raising the fact of her arrest for the first time in the call. 65 The prosecution did not submit that this was, in some way, an admission by silence. I have not used the evidence in this way. -- 81 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 80 559 It is not clear how the call ceased. Either the phone cut out or Ms Edwards hung up without saying goodbye. 26 August 2023 at 2:37 pm 560 The accused rang back some 20 minutes later. Again, the content of the call is telling. Ms Edwards is clearly upset with the accused and says, “There was no thought of me and the girls hey?”. The accused says, “Can you just um sit down so we can just chat?”. She replied, “Nup”. The accused responds, “Okay. I don’t, I, I don’t know what to say honey”. 561 The accused tries to reassure Ms Edwards and says, “You won’t get time over this”. She responds, “I will. Because what I’ve seen right – I’m fucked”. Talking about the time in the “Park” she says there was a “time lapse” of one hour. This is likely to be a reference to the Timeline supplied to the police. Ms Edwards continues and says, “basically where I took the photos you could see the fire…. And they know that those, the photos that I took was of the victim”. It is clear that in this call Ms Edwards admits taking the photos. 562 The accused then attempts to make up another story. He says, “Do they know I stole ID’s” … “from” … “from the” … “house”. Ms Edwards responds, that “I said that and they go “no”. Because just before Neil went to the shop and he always, apparently ah, he always keeps his fucking cards in his wallet right?” … “When she lost hers is when, ah she always keeps hers in her phone. Right?” … “Cos when she got assaulted the person took the fucking cards. Alright?”. 563 The accused’s comment that he stole the identification cards from the house is a lie. That is, the accused told Ms Edwards that the cards were taken by him at an earlier time than the night of the attack. The purpose of the lie is for him to say that his possession of the identification cards does not implicate him as the attacker. 564 Given his later evidence that Beau gave him the identification cards, it is inexplicable why he would make up a lie about stealing them earlier than the relevant time. The accused was clearly lying about this to avoid any suggestion that he was only in possession of the identification cards after the attack on Toni and Neil. That is, the accused was acutely aware that possession of the identification cards subsequent to the attack pointed clearly to him being the attacker. 565 There was simply no reason for him to tell such a lie given his later evidence. This is a significant lie in the context of the case. 566 Ms Edwards immediately exposes the lie by telling the accused that the police know they weren’t stolen before the attack. Given that the accused saw Beau as a “golden ticket” it is curious, to say the least, why he doesn’t mention Beau at this time. -- 82 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 81 567 Once Ms Edwards exposes the lie, the accused does not repeat it or challenge the police version of events. 568 After further discussion the accused tells Ms Edwards “What I want you to do right, is, is just” … “not to say too much over the phone”. 569 Plainly the accused did not want the police to know that he and Ms Edwards went to the Park. The desperation with which the calls following Ms Edwards arrest played out, demonstrates that visiting the Park was not something the accused wanted the police to know. Further, the accused made no reference to the Park on the night of his arrest. Indeed, he lied about owning the motorbike. He did not reference the Park in the various accounts he gave as to his movements in the earlier calls, including the call on 16 August 2023 at 8:25 am, when he made a specific reference to Gorge Road and going up “in The Hills”. Importantly he did not ask Ms Edwards to tell the police, when she provided the screenshots, that their visit to the Park was missing from his Timeline. 570 The accused claimed in cross-examination that he did not know the Park was not in his Timeline given to police by Ms Edwards. This is inconsistent with calls where Ms Edwards and Selena go through his Timeline. The material received by Brevet Sergeant Coulthard reflected what was detailed in the calls. 27 August 2023 at 8:43 am 571 The accused says to Ms Edwards to not plead guilty to anything. Ms Edwards says that she “completely forgot” that they stopped off at the “Reserve” for a bit. 572 The accused said, “we’ll just stop talking on the phone” because he did not want to “twist thing around and make ‘em look like we’re, we’re concocting a story” … “when we’re definitely, most definitely not”. 573 Clearly, they had been concocting a story before these recent calls. 27 August 2023 at 9:29 am 574 The accused tells Ms Edwards that “I’ve done everything to try and help them, I wasn’t hiding nothing I give them my phone everything and they’ve just like turned it around and through [sic] it in my face”. This is undoubtedly a reference to his dealings with the police. The police had his phone but during his initial record of interview he refused to tell them the code to access it. Indeed, there is an earlier call on 15 August 2023 where the accused laughed about the police not being able to work out his code. 575 The accused then goes on to tell Ms Edwards that his “Mum knows a lot more than shes putting on honey”. He says, “there’s a reason why I went to her house that [night] to pick up weed” … “I don’t want to keep covering for other people” … “And um that’s why I wanted them to get into my phone to see the messages from Beau”. -- 83 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 82 576 Despite mentioning Beau there is still no suggestion that he had met Beau earlier in the evening. 577 The call ends due to a lack of time. 27 August 2023 at 1:29 pm 578 There is a discussion about them both being in prison. Ms Edwards says that “I don’t think they’ll let you out” … “I don’t think you can get bail”. 579 The accused responds that, “I’m not gunner [sic] um deny that we weren’t at the reserve” … “But um they can’t prove either of us were at the house or either of us done done it, you know what I mean honey?”. Ms Edwards becomes emotional and the call is ended. She says she will talk to the accused face-to-face when she visits. 27 August 2023 at 2:11 pm 580 Ms Edwards tells the accused in this call to “stop protecting the person”. 28 August 2023 at 9:50 am 581 The accused tells Ms Edwards that he “was told to get rid of that stuff”. Ms Edwards says that she doesn’t want to talk too much over the phone and that she will talk to him on Saturday. 28 August 2023 at 10:22 am 582 There is a discussion about writing letters. 583 There is some discussion about the accused going to prison but not for the “big stuff”. He tells Ms Edwards that he was “just told to deal with things”. 584 He goes on to say, “I had nothing to do with what happened to them” … “I went to mums house and I just – I just got told to deal with stuff that’s all”. 585 Again, this is inconsistent with his evidence in court. On his evidence he was told to get rid of the stuff while near the old Holden factory, not his mother’s house. 3 September 2023 at 9:00 am 586 The accused has devised yet another narrative which is a lie. He tells Ms Edwards that he “took those photos” on her phone.66 The accused maintained the lie that he stole the identification cards on the Monday, 24 April 2023, and said that the victims would simply not have missed them. He says he took them because he wanted to deal with his father’s car registration. There is no mention of Beau giving him the identification cards. Maintaining this lie when he now claims that Beau gave him the cards makes no sense. 66 This is clearly a reference to the photos of the victims’ identification cards found on Ms Edwards’ phone. -- 84 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 83 587 What the accused did not know at this stage is that, perhaps fortuitously for the prosecution, the police had video footage of Neil with his identification card after the accused had been in the house on the Monday. It is another example, a very compelling example, of the accused making up a story to fit what he then understands the evidence to be. 20 September 2023 at 10:04 am 588 The accused tells Ms Edwards that she has to plead not guilty as the police “have it completely wrong”. 589 The content and tone of the calls from 27 August 2023 following the arrest of Ms Edwards shows that the finding of the burnt evidence was an unexpected development. This evidence caused the accused to change the narrative of what he had done on the evening of 25 April 2023. The accused was no longer going to be able to put forward an account in which he was predominantly at Ms Edwards’ house during the evening of 25 April 2023 possibly leaving to visit his mother, pick up weed or look for or collect Ms Edwards. He then invents a narrative in the call on 3 September 2023 to explain the photos which apparently were now taken by him. He also says in the call on 28 August 2023 at 10:22 am that he went to his mum’s place where he was told to “deal with stuff”. 590 This narrative was again inconsistent with his evidence at trial. 591 In the call on 27 August 2023 at 8:43 am, after the revelation that police had found the burnt evidence and the circumstances surrounding this had become a focus of their discussions, the accused again commented, “we’ll just stop talking on the phone”, because he did not want things twisted around to make it look like they were concocting a story, “when we’re definitely, most definitely not”. The accused now had a significant difficulty, in that the police had connected he and Ms Edwards to the burnt evidence and had identified that there were gaps in his Timeline. 592 The content of the calls themselves demonstrate that he, with Ms Edwards, were concocting a story, and the accused was concerned that this may well be apparent. The accused’s credibility, honesty and reliability 593 I have earlier dealt with the accused’s evidence-in-chief. When dealing with the prison calls, I have regard to the cross-examination on those topics. 594 When the accused gave evidence as to his movements on 25 April 2023 truth was an elusive entity. Overall, I found his evidence to be unreliable, lacking in credit and, on occasions, deliberately dishonest. In relation to his movements on 25 April 2023 it is hard to describe how bad the accused’s evidence was when cross-examined. On many occasions when confronted with inconsistencies and difficulties with his evidence he would resort to rambling answers often responding that he wasn’t sure what he was thinking at the time. He was on many -- 85 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 84 occasions evasive when answering questions in cross-examination. When answering questions in cross-examination the accused often prevaricated and generally dissembled when asked to account for a problem with his answers. The meaning of some answers avoided detection. 595 I find that not only did he deliberately lie (which he largely admitted) during the prison calls with Ms Edwards, he also lied to me when giving evidence. I have already discussed the lies the accused told when giving evidence. 596 It is clear from the time of his arrest and his record of interview that the accused wanted to know what evidence the police had that might implicate him. While that is an understandable and quite reasonable position for an accused person to adopt, what is clear is that the accused, particularly in relation to the prison calls, constructed a different narrative of his movements on the evening of the attack depending on what police information was released to him. The lies he told in the recorded telephone calls with Ms Edwards are not independent events. The content of the telephone calls was a work of constant flexible dishonesty. The dishonesty accumulated such that his overall strategy became clear. This was not a farrago of lies; this was a deliberate strategy. The accused intentionally and dishonestly constructed these false narratives knowing his calls were recorded and that the police would listen to them. 597 I find that the accused in the prison calls was prepared to tell a series of lies about his movements on the evening of 25 April 2023 that he thought would help him. 598 I have already made findings as to some of the lies told by the accused. I will not repeat my reasoning but will outline what I consider to be the most significant lies. 599 As discussed earlier I find that the accused lied on oath before me when he said he told Brevet Sergeant Coulthard, when at the Elizabeth Police Station, that “Beau’s done this, not me”. 600 For the reasons expressed earlier, I accept Brevet Sergeant Coulthard’s evidence that no such comment was made. As discussed, I find that the accused deliberately lied about this issue so that he can suggest that he blamed Beau immediately upon his arrest. 601 I also find that the accused lied in evidence about not altering or having someone alter his Timeline. As discussed earlier in these reasons, that answer cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. 602 The accused went to great lengths to ensure the police were shown his Timeline when he knew in fact that an unaltered Timeline would have shown a different but more accurate picture of his movements that night. The altered Timeline recorded that the accused was home from 4:52 pm to 9:28 pm on 25 April 2023, covering the time of the attack. The accused in evidence admitted -- 86 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 85 that he was not at 17 Ferguson Street for the time period shown in his Timeline. His confidence in ensuring the police had access to it demonstrates that he must have known it had been altered. 603 The accused admitted telling a lie in his record of interview with the police. When asked by Brevet Sergeant Coulthard whether he owned a motorbike the accused responded, “Nup”. When asked whether there was a motorbike currently located at his home address the accused responded, “Maybe one in the shed” and that he had “sat on it earlier tonight”. 604 The accused admits that he told lies about his ownership of the motorbike. His explanation in evidence was that he lied because he had committed other offences on his motorbike such as filling his motorbike up with petrol and driving off without paying. Clearly the accused had altered one number on the number plate of the motorbike to avoid not just “petrol drive-offs” but speed camera detections as well. 605 I reject his explanation for this lie to the police. The accused had just been charged with attempted murder. To suggest that he was concerned about being detected for petrol drive-offs or speeding offences borders on the ridiculous. The accused was aware from the police questions that a motorbike had been heard leaving the scene of the attack. He lied in an attempt to demonstrate to the police that he could not have been the attacker. 606 Other significant lies occurred during the prison calls. 607 I have already discussed his evidence in relation to the earlier prison phone calls when he stated that he didn’t want anyone to lie for him.67 This is patently not true as he encouraged Ms Edwards to give a statement to the police telling them that they were together that night. 608 Another significant lie related to the police locating photographs of Toni and Neil’s identification cards on Ms Edwards’ mobile phone. 609 During the prison call of 26 August 2023 at 2:37 pm, the accused and Ms Edwards discussed the fact that she had been arrested over the photographs the police found on her phone of the victims’ identification cards. In a subsequent phone call on 28 August 2023 at 10:22 am, the accused shifts his account, suggesting to Ms Edwards, “What is to say I didn’t take them”. In a later phone call on 3 September 2023, the accused tells Ms Edwards he took the photos. As discussed earlier in these reasons this is a demonstrable lie as the police, unknown to the accused at that time, had video footage of Neil producing his identification card to a police officer after the accused had been inside the house. The accused, not knowing of the existence of the video footage, said that Toni and Neil just wouldn’t have missed them. 67 When cross-examined about his phone conversation with Ms Edwards on 16 June 2023. -- 87 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 86 610 The accused now admits that his statement that he took the identification cards from the house on 24 April 2023 was a lie. What he was unable to explain is why he lied on this topic when his evidence was that he knew he didn’t take them as Beau allegedly gave them to him. 611 The accused has consistently lied. He lied to the police, on the phone during the prison calls and when giving evidence before me. The accused here has told many lies, some on significant matters. In addition, as I discussed earlier he was evasive in the witness box. He was a witness who was prepared to lie if he thought he could obtain an advantage from lying. 612 On other occasions his evidence bordered on fanciful. 613 I give an example. During a prison call, Ms Edwards tells the accused that she has been arrested as the police had found photos of the victims’ identification cards on her phone. I have dealt with the contents of this call earlier in these reasons. The accused’s response during the call was to tell Ms Edwards to not talk on the telephone. He was cross-examined about this part of the prison call as follows: Q. She tells you that ‘Those fucking photos were in their fucking wallet’. A. Yes. Q. She goes on to say ‘Yeah, but well, who fucking, what dumbass would fucking take them out of their fucking wallet?’. A. Yes. Q. ‘I don’t know honey, you know, that’s just fucked, you know, you don’t collect fucking belongings’ and then at line A. Yes. Q. Your response ‘Honey, we still got to remember not to talk on the phone’. A. That’s a stupid comment but yeah, yes. Q. Sorry. A. Which is a stupid thing to say considering I spoke on the phone, yeah. It was just – I wasn’t supposed to say that, that was just a comment to myself. Q. Weren’t you wanting Ms Edwards to shut up. A. No. So she’s going like saying this, right, and I don’t remember what I’d been thinking at the time, but I’m thinking – I don’t know what I – sorry, yeah, I don’t know what I would have been thinking at the time, just thinking what I think now, that she’s, yeah, I don’t know. Yeah. Yeah. -- 88 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 87 Q. Were you wanting to stop her talking on the phone because you were worried she was so angry about being arrested for this that she was about to blurt out what you’d done at 18 Small Crescent. A. I don’t think at any time she had any knowledge of – after me being arrested, who done what. Q. You don’t, at line 122, when she says ‘What dumb-arse would fucking take them out of their fucking wallet?’, you don’t say ‘Beau’, you respond with ‘I don’t know’, is that right. A. Yeah. Yeah, I did say ‘I don’t know’. Back at the question I said a second ago how, I think I said I don’t think she did know of who done what, that’s obviously incorrect but what I should have said, she didn’t know the full details of what went on. (Emphasis added) 614 His explanation for telling Ms Edwards that she should not talk on the phone was that it was “a stupid comment” and that it was just “a comment to myself”. I reject that explanation as simply fanciful.68 615 A finding that a witness told lies on one or more other occasions does not necessarily result in the rejection of the witness’ evidence. People sometimes tell lies when giving evidence. A finding that a witness has lied about a matter need not lead to the rejection of all of the evidence of that witness but may affect the degree of satisfaction of the existence or otherwise of a fact in issue to which the witness’ evidence was directed.69 What is significant when assessing a lie is not the mere fact of the untruthfulness, but its relevance to the issues in dispute. 616 In Edwards v The Queen, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ said:70 Ordinarily, the telling of a lie will merely affect the credit of the witness who tells it. A lie told by an accused may go further and, in limited circumstances, amount to conduct which is inconsistent with innocence, and amount therefore to an implied admission of guilt. In this way the telling of a lie may constitute evidence. When it does so, it may amount to corroboration provided that it is not necessary to rely upon the evidence to be corroborated to establish the lie. ... When the telling of a lie by an accused amounts to an implied admission, the prosecution may rely upon it as independent evidence to “convert what would otherwise have been insufficient into sufficient evidence of guilt” or as corroborative evidence. But not every lie told by an accused provides evidence probative of guilt. It is only if the accused is telling a lie because he perceives that the truth is inconsistent with his innocence that the telling of the lie may constitute evidence against him. In other words, in telling the lie the accused must be acting as if he were guilty. It must be a lie which an innocent person would not tell. That is why the lie must be deliberate. Telling an untruth inadvertently cannot be indicative of guilt. And the lie must relate to a material issue because the telling 68 The prosecution did not suggest that the accused’s answers in evidence could amount to an implied admission. I do not use the evidence for such a purpose. 69 Broadhurst v The Queen [1964] AC 441 at 457 (Lord Devlin): Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) (2023) 416 ALR 24 at [272]. 70 (1993) 178 CLR 193 at 208 - 211. -- 89 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 88 of it must be explicable only on the basis that the truth would implicate the accused in the offence with which he is charged. It must be for that reason that he tells the lie. To say that the lie must spring from a realization or consciousness of guilt is really another way of saying the same thing. ... A lie can constitute an admission against interest only if it is concerned with some circumstance or event connected with the offence (i.e. it relates to a material issue) and if it was told by the accused in circumstances in which the explanation for the lie is that he knew that the truth would implicate him in the offence ... ... And in many cases where there appears to be a departure from the truth it may not be possible to say that a deliberate lie has been told. The accused may be confused. He may not recollect something which, upon his memory being jolted in cross-examination, he subsequently does recollect. (Footnotes omitted) 617 In R v Quist (“Quist”),71 Blue J (with whom I agreed) identified five pre-conditions to be met that would enable consideration to be given by a judge to leave a lie as “consciousness of guilt”. They are: 1. the defendant made a statement; 2. the statement was false; 3. the false statement was a lie, ie a deliberate untruth; 4. the lie was about a material issue; and 5. the defendant told the lie because he or she knew that the truth of the matter about which he or she lied would implicate him or her in the offence or of an element of it and as a corollary that the possibility that the lie was told for some other reason, such as out of panic or to escape an unjust accusation, to protect some other person or to avoid a consequence extraneous to the offence, is excluded.72 618 Chief Justice King, in Harris v The Queen,73 gave guidance as to the type of lies that may be led to show a consciousness of guilt. King CJ stated:74 Lies told by an accused person either to the police or in the witness box are likely to have an adverse effect upon the credibility of the accused as a witness. But even the total disregarding of an accused as a witness is not a substitute for evidence of the commission of the crime charged. Generally speaking, “a case in which an accused gives untruthful evidence is no different from on in which he gives no evidence at all” 71 (2017) 127 SASR 471. 72 (2017) 127 SASR 471 at [169]. 73 (1990) 55 SASR 321. 74 Harris v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 321 at 323. -- 90 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 89 Having sounded a cautionary note about the tendency for a jury to think that if an accused has lied it must be because he or she is guilty, King CJ stated:75 The probative character of some lies rises from this tendency to indicate that they proceed from a consciousness of guilt on the part of the accused. Instances of lies of this kind are false denials of having been in the company of an alleged victim or of having been at the scene of the crime at a relevant time, made at a time when the accused could not have known, unless he was the culprit, that there had been any wrong doing in connection with the alleged victim or at the scene of the crime. Even in such cases courts must be on their guard against collateral motives for telling lies … (Emphasis added) 619 In Quist, I observed:76 It can be a difficult task to determine whether a lie told by an accused amounts to a lie told from a consciousness of guilt therefore attracting an Edwards direction. Such lies are rare and a prosecutor should exercise caution before making such a submission to a jury and asking a Judge to give an Edwards direction. In R v Zoneff it was recognised that this issue presents practical difficulties for trial judges and provides for “fertile ground of appeal”. As Kirby J explained: In the attempt to avoid appeals, prosecutors can be urged to restrain their eagerness to rely in their submissions on suggested lies on the part of the accused to prove guilt (consciousness of guilt). But their questions may already have left a trail. Consciousness of guilt as a phrase has been criticised as being “extremely opaque” and the circumstances in which it may be employed as a matter of “some controversy”. A number of cases across various jurisdictions have noted the practical difficulties in identifying what lies may be regarded as admissible for the purpose of showing a consciousness of guilt. (Footnotes omitted) 620 As both Blue J and I observed in Quist great care must be taken to ensure that a lie said to constitute a consciousness of guilt does not involve circular reasoning.77 621 The prosecution submitted that some of the lies told should be treated as demonstrating a consciousness of guilt. I have carefully considered the prosecution submissions on the question of lies. 622 I have reached the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case, none of the proven lies can be used by me as evincing a consciousness of guilt. I find that the proven lies can only be used by me when assessing the credibility of the accused. 75 Harris v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 321 at 323. 76 R v Quist (2017) 127 SASR 471 at [285]-[287]. 77 R v Quist (2017) 127 SASR 471 at [170] (Blue J); [290] (Lovell J). -- 91 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 90 623 I generally reject his evidence. I find that I cannot accept anything the accused said unless it was supported by other evidence that I accept. 624 I remind myself that mere rejection of the accused’s evidence is not affirmative proof of the contrary of the evidence which has been rejected. Even the total disregarding of an accused as a witness is not a substitute for evidence of the commission of the crime charged. A case in which an accused gives untruthful evidence is no different from one in which he gives no evidence at all. Was there a meeting near the old Holden factory between Beau and the accused? 625 This alleged meeting is crucial to the outcome of the case. The accused admits that shortly after the attack on Toni and Neil, he was in possession of items stolen during the attack. The critical issue then is whether Beau committed the offences, stole various items from 18 Small Crescent and passed them onto to the accused after the attack. If the meeting did not take place the accused has no explanation for being in possession of the items stolen from the premises. 626 In determining this issue, I must have regard to all the evidence in the case. It is not a case of whether I prefer Beau’s evidence to that of the accused. I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences charged. A rejection of the accused’s evidence on this issue does not mean that he is guilty of the offence. If it is a reasonable possibility that the meeting took place and the accused was given the items then I must acquit the accused of all the offences. Even if I find that the meeting did not take place, I must still go on to consider whether on the prosecution evidence I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the accused who attacked Toni and Neil. 627 Beau denied committing the attacks and handing the accused items taken from 18 Small Crescent during the attack. Beau’s evidence that he was at home at the time of the attack was supported by Ms Nickles-Caston. 628 The evidence of both Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston must be considered in conjunction with all the evidence in the case. I have done so. I have had regard to the accused’s submissions. I find that both Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston were good witnesses. I accept they were truthful, credible and reliable. 629 The accused submitted that I should reject Beau’s evidence or at least have considerable doubt about whether I could rely upon it. 630 The accused submitted that Beau had a motive to lie. This related to the previous incident, being the 2008 serious criminal trespass, with the accused where Beau lied to protect the accused. The accused submitted that Beau was motivated to lie as he considered that his brother should cover for him in relation to this incident. 631 I reject that submission. I simply do not accept that the previous incident has anything to do with what has occurred in relation to this matter. -- 92 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 91 632 The accused also pointed to the fact that Beau’s texts, threatening harm to Neil, demonstrate that at the very least he was considering inflicting violence on Neil. Also the accused submitted that Beau’s contact with Ms Nickles-Caston, particularly texts in relation to what Ms Nickles-Caston may say in evidence, are matters which reflect poorly on the credibility and reliability of both Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston. 633 In assessing the credibility and reliability of both Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston, I have taken into account the accused’s submissions. However, as mentioned earlier, I must consider their evidence in relation to all evidence in the case. 634 The telephone records, analysed by Dr Sorell, support Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston’s evidence. That evidence supports their evidence in important aspects. In particular, the evidence of Dr Sorell in relation to Beau’s phone accessing his betting WhatsApp group chat at 8:32:06 pm is very important. I find that Beau accessed his phone at that time and did so while he was still at home. I reject the suggestion that Ms Nickles-Caston may have accessed his phone at that time while Beau was absent from the premises. 635 I have considered the accused’s submission that I could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston conspired to give Beau, in effect, an alibi for the time of the attack. Again, when considering that submission, I must take into account all of the evidence and all of the accused’s submissions. 636 Ms Nickles-Caston was an impressive witness. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner. I find she was a credible witness. The blacking out of messages, the content of which was sensitive, does not undermine Ms Nickles-Caston’s account. I accept her evidence that she spent the night with Beau and that after they arrived at Beau’s place that her and Beau did not leave the premises until the next morning. 637 The suggestion that Beau in some way deliberately organised an alibi by having Ms Nickles-Caston access his phone, even if she did so not knowing what he intended, is fanciful. 638 I also reject as fanciful the suggestion that Beau and Ms Nickles-Caston planned this attack, and that she accessed his phone as part of a plan to concoct an alibi for him. I reject even as a reasonably possibility that Ms Nickles-Caston, in some way lied to provide Beau with a false alibi. As mentioned above, I find that it was Beau who accessed his WhatsApp account at 8:32:06 pm. I find that he did so while present at his residence and in the presence of Ms Nickles-Caston. 639 Assuming Beau was at home at 8:32:06 pm, and that it would take by car at least one to two minutes means that Beau could not have been at 18 Small Crescent before approximately 8:33 pm to 8:34 pm. -- 93 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 92 640 The accused’s evidence was that he met Beau near the old Holden factory sometime after 8:30 pm. It is necessary to consider his evidence and Beau’s evidence against the undisputed evidence of the telephone records of Beau, the accused and Toni. 641 During the afternoon of 25 April 2023, Toni’s phone connects to the Davoren Park 25-degree antenna until about 7:45 pm. There is a short period where no connection is recorded before it connects again to that antenna at 8:36:07 pm. At 8:37:46 pm, her phone connects to the Davoren Park South base station indicating that by that time at least the phone has moved from 18 Small Crescent. Fourteen seconds after connecting to the Davoren Park South station her phone connects to the Andrews Farm South base station. The phone is clearly travelling south rather than back in the direction of Beau’s house. 642 That Toni’s phone began to move shortly after 8:36:07 pm is entirely consistent with the evidence of the occupants of 16 Small Crescent discussed earlier. Clip 1 of the doorbell footage shows Ms Hayford holding the screen door open at 8:35:17 pm. Prior to opening the door Ms Hayford said she had heard a “thud” and then a female sobbing. As discussed earlier in these reasons, I infer that the “thud” Ms Hayford heard, followed by a female sobbing, must have occurred a minute or so before opening the door at 8:35:17 pm. Ms Hayford said she spoke to Ms Minnis-Haenen before opening the door. Clearly the attack began a short time before she first opened the door at 8:35:17 pm. Ms Hayford said that she heard more noise including a male voice yell “shush”. Whether that was the attacker or perhaps Neil is unknown. This caused her to look outside again. Clip 2 commences at 8:36:21 pm and shows Ms Minnis-Haenan followed by Ms Hayford walking onto the porch. The clip lasts around 20 seconds. She and Ms Minnis-Haenen return inside. Shortly after they go inside Ms Hayford hears the loud noise of a motorbike start up and drive off. The attacker left sometime after 8:36:21 pm probably around 8:37 pm. As mentioned, this is entirely consistent with Toni’s telephone records. 643 I have considered the possibility that the attacker arrived on foot or drove to 18 Small Crescent in a motor vehicle. None of the occupants of 16 Small Crescent heard or observed a car leaving the vicinity at this time. It is striking that the movement of Toni’s phone coincided with Ms Hayford’s evidence that she heard the motorbike leave after the time shown in Clip 2. As indicated, I accept Ms Minnis-Haenan’s evidence that she saw a shadowy figure leaving 18 Small Crecent followed by a motorbike engine starting. 644 I find the attacker drove away on a motorbike. 645 The distance from 18 Small Crescent to the alleged meeting place near the old Holden factory is about nine to 10 km. 646 The accused said in evidence that he met with Beau near the old Holden factory. Beau did not arrive on a motorbike but was driving his car. He said Beau -- 94 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 93 got out of his car, collected something from the back seat of the car and gave him a bag telling him “Get rid of this”. There was conversation about the fact that he was heading to his mother’s house. Beau also gave him the identification cards of Toni and Neil separately from handing him the bag. 647 The meeting was brief probably no more than a minute. The accused said he got back on his motorbike having put the items in his backpack and rode off. He stopped not far from the meeting place to ring his mother to let her know he was on his way to her house. He then sent a message to Ms Stapleton and asked her to turn the cameras off. 648 Analysis of the telephone records establishes that the accused had Toni’s phone in his possession no later than 8:42:44 pm when Toni’s phone and his phone connect to adjacent base stations. The accused in evidence admitted that he had Toni’s phone at that time, although it was the accused’s evidence that the contents of the bag Beau handed to him, including Toni’s phone, were not known to him at the time. 649 The accused said he had to reset his phone as it was “black” when he went to ring his mother. He had to stop the motorbike, realised his phone was “black” and then did something to reset it. It follows that as his phone reconnected to the network at 8:42:44 pm he must have stopped his motorbike before that time. 650 While it is not possible to be precise about times, the attacker left 18 Small Crescent at approximately 8:37 pm and by approximately 8:42 pm the accused has stopped his motorbike and is resetting his phone. In that five minute or so period the accused alleges he met Beau and took the items. Beau was in his car not on a motorbike. 651 The times do not support the accused’s version of events and are more consistent with there not being a meeting with Beau. 652 The accused’s version of events also lacks credibility in other areas. The accused alleged that Beau told him to ring his mother and ask her to turn off the cameras. That is inherently unlikely; there was no reason for Beau to be concerned about whether his mother’s cameras were turned off before the accused arrived at the premises. 653 Also, there is the question of whether the accused’s phone went “black” during the critical time. The evidence establishes that the accused’s phone disconnected from the network at 8:17:31 pm and reconnected at 8:42:41 pm. I reject the accused’s evidence that the phone turned itself off for some unknown reason. It is a striking coincidence that the phone disconnected from the mobile service for the critical time period that night. 654 Not only is it a striking coincidence, Dr Sorell gave evidence about the time when the accused’s phone detached from the network. The prosecution asked -- 95 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 94 Dr Sorell about the record which indicated the accused’s phone had detached from the network. The following interchange occurred in relation to that event: Q. You’ve told us that you’ve seen the detach in the records. A. Yes. Q. What does that mean in terms of what’s happened with the handset. A. So the handset is now not connected to the network, which is different to not being active on the network, because the phone and the network have actually negotiated to disconnect. That can occur if the battery goes flat, if the phone is switched off or if the phone is put into flight mode. It doesn’t occur, for example, if the battery is damaged or the phone is damaged, because there is no possibility to engage in that handshake. So they are the three options. Q. So for an LTE detach record to appear does the phone, in effect, the handset, tell the network ‘I’m disconnecting from you’. A. That’s right, so there is a protocol that’s involved in that. Q. If you are just looking at those rows of data on their own are you able to say which of the three options, so switching the phone off, putting it into flight mode or the battery going flat has caused the detachment. Just those rows alone. A. Not by looking at that alone. Noting that the battery going flat is not a deliberate act, where the other two are. 655 There is a protocol when the phone disconnects from the network. The phone and the network actually “negotiate” to disconnect from the network. This negotiation occurs in three ways – by turning it off, turning it to flight mode or the battery going flat. 656 In this case the accused did not suggest he put his phone in flight mode. His phone could not have had a flat battery as he did not recharge it before it reconnected to the network at 8:42:41 pm. As there is a record that the “protocol” was followed the only option left is that it was turned off. The only person who could do that was the accused. 657 Dr Sorell was not asked whether some intermittent malfunction could cause the phone to disconnect from the network and still comply with the protocol. In any event even if that were somehow possible the timing of it disconnecting from the network strongly suggests it was turned off by the accused. 658 I find that the accused deliberately turned his mobile off because he intended to travel to 18 Small Crescent and attack Toni and Neil. 659 I have carefully considered the accused’s evidence. As discussed earlier, he was an extremely poor witness. He lied on oath when giving evidence and he lied in his prison calls. I am unable to accept his evidence as to the alleged meeting -- 96 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 95 with Beau near the old Holden factory even as a reasonable possibility. I accept beyond a reasonable doubt Beau’s evidence that no such meeting took place. 660 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a rational inference having considered all the evidence that the accused attacked Toni and Neil. There was no meeting with Beau, and the accused was in possession of items stolen from the premises. I am also satisfied that it is the only rational inference available on all the evidence. 661 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused on 25 April 2023 entered the house at 18 Small Crescent and attacked both Toni and Neil inflicting serious injuries to both victims. What did the accused intend? 662 To prove the charges of attempted murder, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that when the accused struck Toni and Neil he did so with intent to kill them. That is, the mental element of attempted murder requires the prosecution to prove a specific intent to kill the victims. That the accused may not have cared when he struck the blows whether the victims died or not is insufficient. He must have intended to kill them. 663 The accused accepted that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt, whoever struck the blows, they did so with the intention of causing serious harm to the victims. 664 I have summarised the medical evidence earlier in these reasons. 665 Turning to the injuries suffered by Toni, the main injury was the cut to her left forehead which extended down to her left eyebrow. The cut extended to the skull bone where there was an obvious fracture of her skull. Whatever caused the laceration caused the fracture. The laceration and skull fracture were both consistent with having been caused by the sharp end of a small axe.78 666 Toni also had a laceration to her top right eyelid which penetrated through one of the muscles sitting round the eye exposing the bone underneath. This may have been caused by a glancing blow of the axe but was also consistent with Toni, having been struck to the head and then falling and striking her head for example on the door frame as she fell. The other more minor injuries Toni suffered could have been a result of her falling and coming into contact with an inanimate object, such as the door frame. 667 There can be no doubt that Toni was struck with significant force with an instrument consistent with the sharp end of a small axe. She may have been struck a second time, this being a glancing blow. At the time she was attacked Toni was 49 years old, five foot and seven inches tall and of slim build. 78 Such as Exhibit P46. -- 97 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 96 668 Neil suffered two lacerations to his right forehead area. One had clearly visible bone fragments and, at the time of examination, pulsing cerebrospinal fluid. That is the force was sufficient to break the entirety of the skull and expose the membrane around Neil’s brain. The second laceration was less severe. Neil also suffered a comminuted fracture of the right eye socket. 669 Neil was clearly struck once with considerable force causing the skull fracture. The injury was consistent with having been caused by the small axe79 but it was not possible to say whether the sharp or blunt end of the axe was used. The fracture to the eye socket may have been caused by a small axe but was also consistent with Neil falling to the ground and striking his head on an object such as a door frame. 670 However, the evidence of Sergeant Logan, discussed earlier in these reasons, was consistent with Neil being struck a second time rather than the injury to his face being caused by a fall. 671 There is no doubt that both Toni and Neil suffered serious harm. 672 I find that Toni was struck once to the head with a weapon such as Exhibit P46, the small axe. The evidence does not permit a finding that she was struck with the weapon more than once. Although I consider it unlikely, I cannot exclude the possibility that her other injuries were caused by Toni falling over having been struck to the head. 673 Relying on the medical evidence and the evidence of Sergeant Logan, I find that Neil was struck twice during the attack. The injuries he suffered were consistent with having been caused by the small axe. 674 The evidence establishes that the attack was quick but not sustained. Given the evidence of the occupants of 16 Small Crescent, the attack was likely over within a minute or two. I find that Toni was felled immediately after she opened the door and Neil very quickly thereafter. Neither victim was armed and both, given their ages, were vulnerable. Very quickly after entering the house, the accused had rendered both victims senseless. While the accused spent at least a short period of time collecting items from both Toni and Neil which he eventually took from the house there was certainly sufficient time for the accused to have struck further blows to both victims had he wished to. There was an opportunity for him to have struck further blows to each victim and kill them. He did not do so. 675 The blows were struck with sufficient force to cause very serious injuries to both the victims and intentionally so. However, I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill Toni at the time he struck her. I 79 Such as Exhibit P46. -- 98 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 97 also cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill Neil when he struck him. 676 The accused may not have cared whether the victims died or not. That is, he may have been reckless in that regard. But attempted murder requires the prosecution to prove more than recklessness. It had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a specific intent to kill at the time the blows were struck. It has not done so. 677 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time Toni was struck the accused intended to, and did inflict, serious bodily harm on her. 678 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that at the times Neil was struck the accused intended to, and did inflict, serious bodily harm on him. Conclusions Toni 679 In relation to Count 1, the charge of attempted murder of Toni, I find the accused not guilty. 680 In relation to Count 2, the charge of causing serious harm to Toni with the intent to cause serious harm, I find the following matters proved beyond a reasonable doubt: • the accused attacked Toni and caused harm to her; • the harm he caused was serious; • the accused caused the harm deliberately and not accidentally; • the accused acted unlawfully; and • at the time the accused caused serious harm, the accused intended to cause serious harm to Toni. 681 For the reasons provided earlier, I find the accused guilty of the basic offence comprising Count 2. 682 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence using an offensive weapon, namely an axe. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the aggravated offence comprising Count 2. Neil 683 In relation to Count 3, the charge of attempted murder of Neil, I find the accused not guilty. -- 99 of 100 -- [2026] SASC 13 Lovell J 98 684 In relation to Count 4, the charge of causing serious harm to Neil with the intent to cause serious harm, I find the following matters proved beyond a reasonable doubt: • the accused attacked Neil and caused harm to him; • the harm he caused was serious; • the accused caused the harm deliberately and not accidentally; • the accused acted unlawfully; and • at the time the accused caused serious harm, the accused intended to cause serious harm to Neil. 685 For the reasons provided above, I find the accused guilty of the basic offence comprising Count 4. 686 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence using an offensive weapon, namely a small axe. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the aggravated offence comprising Count 4. Verdicts 687 I find the accused not guilty of Count 1. 688 I find the accused guilty of Count 2. 689 I find the accused not guilty of Count 3. 690 I find the accused guilty of Count 4. -- 100 of 100 --