[2026] SADC 24

Prosecution: R Counsel: MR S PLUMMER - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Defendant: T, D Counsel: MR T BLAKE - Solicitor: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION (SA) Hearing Date/s: 23/06/2025, 25/06/2025 to 26/06/2025, 30/06/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-21-218 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. R v T, D Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2026] SADC 24 Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Allen 25 March 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT The accused is charged with the offence of rape, contrary to s 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. It is alleged that the accused raped the complainant by inserting his penis into his anus, without his consent to engaging in sexual intercourse, knowing or being recklessly indifferent as to whether he consented. Verdict: Guilty. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 48(1); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34M, 34R, referred to. R v H, T (2010) 108 SASR 86; R v El Rifai [2012] SASCFC 98; Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193; Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; De Virgilio v The King [2026] SASCA 16, considered. -- 1 of 46 -- -- 2 of 46 -- R v T, D [2026] SADC 24 [Criminal] Introduction 1 The accused is charged on an Information dated 7 May 2021 with the offence of: Count 1 Offence Details: Rape. (Section 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars [T, D] on the 29th day of April 2020 at Elizabeth Vale, engaged in sexual intercourse with [LM] by inserting his penis into his anus, without [LM]’s consent to engaging in sexual intercourse, knowing or being recklessly indifferent to the fact that he was not so consenting. 2 The accused elected for trial by judge alone. For the reasons which follow, I find the accused guilty of the charge. Prosecution case 3 The prosecution case on the allegation of rape against the accused relies upon the evidence of the complainant, [LM], supported by evidence of the injuries to the complainant’s perineum and perianal skin. The prosecution submitted that the injuries are consistent with the complainant’s evidence. Specifically, that [LM] awoke to find the accused behind him, with his penis inside [LM]’s anus. 4 The rape is said to have occurred on 28 April 2020 in the lounge room of the house in which both the accused and the complainant lived at Elizabeth Vale. [LM] had awoken to the feeling of the accused behind him, holding him from behind. The accused’s penis was inside [LM]’s anus and the accused was moving his penis backwards and forwards. [LM] was in pain at the time. [LM] pushed the accused away, pulled his shorts up, which were around his ankles, and punched the accused in his face. Elements of the offence Rape 5 The offence of rape is comprised of three elements. Each element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 6 The first element is that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant. Sexual intercourse includes any activity consisting of or involving penetration of a person’s anus by any part of the body of another person. -- 3 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 2 7 It is in dispute that the accused had penile/anal sexual intercourse with the complainant. The case advanced by the accused was that the act of sexual intercourse never occurred. 8 The second element is that the accused had sexual intercourse with [LM] without his consent. A person gives consent if they agree freely and voluntarily to engage in the sexual activity. Where the person agrees to sexual activity because of the application of force or an express or implied threat of the application of force, they cannot be taken to be freely and voluntarily agreeing to the sexual activity, and there is, therefore, no consent. A lack of physical violence or physical injury during the sexual activity does not signify that the complainant consented. A person cannot consent to sexual activity if asleep or unconscious. 9 The final element is that the accused either knew that [LM] was not consenting or was recklessly indifferent to [LM]’s lack of consent. The accused is recklessly indifferent to the fact that another person does not consent to sexual intercourse if: a) he is aware of the possibility that the complainant might not be consenting to the act but decides to proceed regardless of that possibility; or, b) he is aware of the possibility that the complainant might not be consenting to the act but fails to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the other person does, in fact, consent before deciding to proceed; or, c) he does not give any thought as to whether or not the complainant is consenting to the act before deciding to proceed. Preliminary legal directions 10 Having conducted the trial by judge alone, it is unnecessary to set out the various standard directions that would be given to a jury. Nonetheless, I remind myself of the following principles. 11 The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of proof. The accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until the evidence satisfies me that each element of the offence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a mere suspicion of guilt or to demonstrate probable guilt. If, after full and careful consideration, I am unable to decide where the truth lies or who is telling the truth, the prosecution will have fallen short of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the verdict should be one of not guilty. The accused is not required to prove that he did not commit the offence with which he is charged. 12 A witness gave evidence with special arrangements in place. I must not allow the fact of these arrangements to influence the weight that I give to the witness’s -- 4 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 3 evidence. I must not draw an adverse inference against the accused as a result of the fact that these arrangements were in place. Expert witness 13 In this case, Dr Lyndall Anne Young, Dr Allison Boyd-O’Reilly and Professor Arduino Mangoni were called to give expert opinion evidence. Those opinions must be within their particular areas of expertise and the opinions must be based on their knowledge, training or experience. I am entitled to accept or reject any opinion evidence, however, before doing so I must consider the person’s qualifications, whether their opinion is based on a fact I accept, whether the opinion is in dispute, and whether the topic fits with any other evidence that I have heard and accepted on that topic. Election not to give evidence 14 The accused elected not to give evidence at this trial. The accused was not bound to give evidence. The accused has the right to decline to give evidence. Because that is his legal right, I must not draw any inference adverse to him or the case the accused’s puts forward from the exercise of that right. There may be many reasons the accused did not give evidence, and I must not speculate on those reasons. I bear in mind that it is at all times, for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Matters not in dispute 15 There are a number of matters not in dispute which I find proven unless otherwise indicated. These matters were set out in a Statement of Agreed Facts, tendered as Exhibit P11, and set out in full as follows: Agreed Facts Dates of birth 1. [LM] (the complainant) was born on 30 March 1987. 2. [T, D] (the accused) was born on 1 June 1966. Handwriting 3. A document with Client reference number SAP2000102841 PE0001; Exhibit number 7.01 was seized by Detective Brevet Sergeant Daniel Wasley on 18 April 2023. This exhibit is MFI P1. 4. A signature of MFI P1 marked under the name of ‘[T, D]’ and date ‘01/06/1966’ was recorded by Dr Carolyne Lyndsay Bird (Dr Bird) as ‘Questioned signature (7.01)’. 5. Questioned signature (7.01) was compared by Dr Bird against ‘Known signatures (9.01)’. -- 5 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 4 6. The known signatures (9.01) include: 6.1 DT1.1 6.2 DT1.2 6.3 DT2.1 6.4 DT2.2 6.5 DT3.1 6.6 DT3.2 6.7 DT4.1 6.8 DT4.2 6.9 DT5.1 6.10 DT6.1 6.11 DT6.2 6.12 DT6.3 6.13 DT6.4 6.14 DT7.1 6.15 DT8.1 6.16 DT9.1 6.17 DT9.2 6.18 DT10.1 6.19 DT11.1 6.20 DT11.2 7. It is agreed that each of the ‘Known signatures (9.01)’ were made by the accused. DNA 8. Detective Gary Batty seized a pair of grey underpants from the complainant at the Christies Beach Police Station. The underpants were given exhibit number 20/A36265-1. Toxicology 9. A urine sample was taken from the complainant during his attendance at Yarrow Place on 3 May 2020. That urine sample was given exhibit number 20/A36265-12 and received at the Forensic Science Centre on 5 May 2020. -- 6 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 5 Affidavits 16 The prosecution tendered a number of affidavits and reports that were not in dispute. Exhibit P6 – Forensic Biology Report of Louise Anne Harkin dated 25 August 2020 17 The report of Forensic Biologist, Louise Anne Harkin, was tendered. The report details that a reference sample was taken from both the complainant and the accused. The grey underpants of the complainant were analysed. Semen was not detected on the inner rear surface. Blood-like staining was detected on the inner rear surface. A tape lift, used to sample the outer rear waistband, was submitted for DNA analysis. The tape lift from the inner rear surface was submitted for DNA analysis. The results demonstrated that the accused was not a contributor to the sample present. Exhibit P7 – Toxicology report of Heather Joy Lindsay dated 2 July 2020 18 The toxicology report of Heather Joy Lindsay detailed that the complainant’s urine contained methylamphetamine, amphetamine and cannabis. Exhibit P8 – Statement of Marc Grabowski dated 23 June 2025 19 This statement was obtained from another forensic scientist who proffered the same opinions in relation to the toxicology report, namely that the complainant’s urine contained methylamphetamine, amphetamine and cannabis. Mr Grabowski’s evidence was admitted owing to the retirement of Ms Lindsay. Exhibit P9 – Statement of Carolyne Lindsay Bird dated 28 February 2024 20 Dr Bird prepared a report in relation to handwriting analysis from Exhibit PE 7.01. The relevant conclusion of the report was that there was neutral support for the accused having signed the relevant document. Exhibit P10 – Statement of Fiona Matthews dated 08.06.2020 21 On 3 May 2020 at 7:30 pm, Brevet Sergeant Matthews attended the premises at Elizabeth Vale and conducted a forensic examination. A series of photographs were taken and observations were made by the officer. The photographs were subsequently tendered as Exhibit P2 in this trial. Evidence at trial 22 There were five prosecution witnesses that gave evidence at trial. They were [LM], [LB], Dr Young, Dr Boyd-O’Reilly and Detective Wasley. The accused called one witness at trial, Professor Mangoni. 23 The following is a summary only of the evidence. I have considered the entirety of the evidence. -- 7 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 6 Complainant [LM] Examination-in-chief Background 24 [LM] is 38 years of age. As at 2020, he was residing in Elizabeth Vale.1 The complainant relocated to this address in 2019 prior to Christmas with his partner at the time, [DW].2 The accused also resided at this address at the time. The complainant had known the accused for approximately a year or two prior to residing together. [LM] was the accused’s carer. Consequently, the complainant received an allowance from Centrelink. The accused had medical difficulties including schizophrenia, bipolar, irritable bowel syndrome and difficulties with his feet.3 The accused was prescribed medication to assist with the constellation of medical issues that he experienced. 25 [LM] separated from [DW] approximately two to three months after moving in with the accused. The complainant resided with the accused for some time before engaging in a relationship with [LB]. [LB] did not reside at the premises, but would visit often and sleep overnight from time to time.4 26 [LM] had never engaged in relationships with men and only had a sexual interest in females.5 Living arrangements 27 The complainant did not have a positive relationship with the accused when first residing at the Elizabeth Vale premises. [LM] stated that the accused was demanding and they would often argue. [LM] initially slept on the lounge, but after the previous residents left, [LM] moved into a bedroom.6 Drug use 28 When [LM] first moved in with the accused, he was using drugs, including methylamphetamine and cannabis.7 The complainant would consume methylamphetamine through a pipe. As at December 2019, [LM] was smoking approximately a gram of methylamphetamine a fortnight.8 Whilst the complainant was residing with [DW], he was trying to cease his methylamphetamine use with [DW]’s help.9 [LM] did not cease using drugs completely and relapsed from time to time. 1 T37. 2 T37. 3 T38.24-28. 4 T40. 5 T40.6-11. 6 T41.2-5. 7 T41.9-10. 8 T41.16-18. 9 T42.1-13. -- 8 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 7 29 The complainant gave evidence that methylamphetamine would ‘keep me alert, keep me busy’.10 [LM] would also be awake for a few days at a time.11 When the complainant was coming down from methylamphetamine, he would use cannabis in order to sleep and eat.12 Incident giving rise to the charge 30 The complainant was watching a movie and was waiting for the midnight news to air. [LM]’s dog was in the lounge room. The last memory the complainant had on this occasion was sitting next to the dog, before waking up feeling that there was something on top of him. [LM]’s stomach felt sore and he experienced a pain in his rectum, reaching up to his belly button.13 [LM] still experiences pain following the incident and described that the pain was ‘quite excruciating’.14 Prior to the incident, [LM] had a small incision to the top left side of his buttock.15 [LM] had no previous injuries to his anus,16 or any issues with his bowel or anus. 31 The complainant initially believed ‘I may have been dreaming’. The complainant described previously experiencing vivid dreams. When the complainant realised what was occurring, he pushed the accused off and hit the accused with a closed fist.17 32 [LM] described that he awoke to the accused behind him. There was no one else in the house at the time. [LM] was in the lounge room. Before [LM] fell asleep, the accused was in the lounge room on a recliner chair on the other side of the room.18 The complainant described falling asleep and was ‘slumped over’ on the left side of the lounge, which is the blue couch depicted in Exhibit P2. The complainant awoke in the same position.19 The complainant believed the conduct of the accused lasted approximately 30 seconds to a minute.20 33 When [LM] awoke, the accused had both his hands around the complainant’s waist and was thrusting in a back and forward motion.21 The accused’s penis was in the complainant’s rectum. The complainant described feeling ‘like my bum was going to explode, I could feel like a sharp pain in my stomach all the way to my belly button’.22 10 T43. 11 T44.1-3. 12 T44.4-8. 13 T44.17-29. 14 T80.10-14. 15 T81. 16 T81.17-19. 17 T44.17-29. 18 T45.10-14. 19 T46. 20 T47.13-17. 21 T46.31-34. 22 T47.8-12. -- 9 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 8 34 After the complainant struck the accused, the accused put his hands in the air and looked at the complainant with a blank face.23 As a consequence of the blow, the accused sustained an injury above his right eye and the complainant observed blood flowing from the area.24 [LM] wrapped a t-shirt around the accused’s head. [LM] said words to the effect of ‘what the fuck are you doing’.25 His blue shorts and boxer shorts were around his ankles.26 [LM] was not wearing a shirt at the time. The accused was wearing denim jeans and a blue and yellow striped top. The accused’s jeans were also past his knees. [LM] observed the accused’s penis.27 The accused was not wearing a condom. The accused did not say anything to the complainant at the time of engaging in anal sexual intercourse.28 The underwear that the complainant wore was depicted in Exhibit P3. 35 The complainant had not consumed methylamphetamine on 28 April 2020. However, the complainant had consumed 2 grams of cannabis on this day through a bottle (presumably a bong).29 36 The complainant did not consent to the accused penetrating his anus with his penis.30 Post incident 37 [LM] then went to his bedroom crying. [LM] attempted to contact [LB]. The complainant then heard the front door slam. [LM] was arguing with [LB] at the time and [LB] initially refused to attend the address. The complainant then said ‘I ended up explaining to her what had happened’. No further detail was given at this stage as to ‘what had happened’ actually meant. [LB] stated that she would be there as soon as possible. [LB] attended the house the following day. The complainant did not sleep that night. The complainant observed the accused leave the premises. The complainant then had a shower.31 [LM] took off his underwear and observed both ‘shit inside of them and blood’.32 The complainant then placed the underwear in a plastic bag. Further interaction with accused 38 The accused returned the following day to the residence. It was daylight when the accused returned. The accused returned home before [LB] attended the premises. The accused was sitting at the kitchen table. The accused was consuming a coffee and was crying. The accused did not say anything at this time. The complainant then approached the accused and asked why the accused had 23 T48.2-5. 24 T79.1-13. 25 T48.2-5. 26 T48.9-10. 27 T48. 28 T49. 29 T44.33-38. 30 T72.10-12. 31 T50. 32 T50-32.35. -- 10 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 9 done what he did the night before. [LM] stated that he was going to report the incident to the police. The accused continued to cry and stated words to the effect of ‘that he would die in gaol’.33 39 [LM] was sitting at the kitchen table with the accused when this conversation occurred. The complainant questioned if the accused had done this before or to anybody else. The accused responded that he had engaged in this conduct previously with both the complainant and the complainant’s dog.34 [LM] swore at the accused and asked ‘why the fuck he had done what he had done to me last night, I called him an arsehole for it, I called him a paedophile, asked if he’s done anything to Bella before, my dog, and he said he has so I went off at him and swore at him.35 The accused continued to cry during this conversation. The accused also stated that he was always sexually active and would engage in sex with vacuum cleaners. Exhibit P1 – document of [LM] 40 [LM] gave evidence in respect to a letter that was allegedly written with the accused prior to [LB]’s arrival.36 The complainant had previously written a similar document with the accused regarding other prior incidents (not of a sexual nature).37 The complainant wrote the document (Exhibit P1) with the accused at the kitchen table. The complainant observed that the accused still had his head wrapped with a beanie on as well.38 [LM] signed this document. The complainant discussed the contents of the document with the accused whilst contemporaneously writing the document.39 41 The complainant wrote: I [LM] 30/03/1984 have been residing with [T, D] 01/06/1966 as his carer and have been keeping [T, D] out of trouble and trouble away from home. I have also been securing the home with spot lights, CCTV, etc. As I have been living with [T, D], I have been unaware of his (full) background’.40 Well you find out the hard way. I woke up to [T, D] having sexual intercourse with me. He has been doing this to me for God knows how long, but he has also been drugging me with his medication so he can do so and my dog too as he has now told me since I woke up to him doing this to me. 33 T52.15-17. 34 T53.1-7. 35 T54.13-19. 36 T54.38. 37 T55.1-14. 38 T79.36-37. 39 T57.2-4. 40 T64.21-36. -- 11 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 10 [T, D] has told me he is aware of his actions and is sorry but that is not good enough in my eyes and he should be held accountable for his actions. 42 At no point did the complainant read any part of this document to the accused. [LM] provided this letter to the accused and the accused signed the document at the kitchen table. [LM] did not see the accused read the document and did not know whether the accused did in fact read the document prior to signing.41 The complainant requested that the accused sign the bottom of the document, which he did. The accused did not say anything at this time. [LM] returned to his bedroom and the accused remained at the kitchen table. 43 The accused had admitted that there had been prior incidents,42 so the complainant wrote that, ‘He has been doing this to me for God knows how long’.43 The complainant also wrote in the document, 'But he has also been drugging me with his medication so he can do so'.44 He explained that the accused had admitted to putting Seroquel in the complainant’s food and drink.45 [LM] could not recall the exact words that the accused used at the time. The accused had only used the term medication as opposed to Seroquel. [LM] presumed the accused meant Seroquel as he would purchase this medication at the chemist, as well as Viagra.46 44 [LM] then recorded in the document, '[the accused] has told me he is aware of his actions and is sorry, but that is not good enough in my eyes and he should be held accountable for his actions'.47 The complainant stated that the accused ‘was just more or less sorry because he didn’t want me to report it to the police, and kept crying and saying that he didn’t want to go to gaol because he’d die there’.48 [LM] could not recall the exact words that were used at this time. The complainant recalled that the accused was crying and stating that he was sorry, that he should not have engaged in the acts, and did not wish for the allegations to be reported.49 Police station attendance 45 The complainant attended the police station with both [LB] and the accused. [LB] drove all three individuals to the police station.50 The complainant did not have a licence at the time.51 [LM] did not disclose to the accused that they were travelling to the police station and locked the doors of the car. The complainant provided the police with a number of items, including his underwear and his shorts. [LM] did not produce the document that was signed by the complainant and the accused at this time. The complainant was fearful that he would lose the document 41 T59.20-24. 42 T64.33-36. 43 T65.6-11. 44 T65.17-20. 45 T65.23-26. 46 T66.24-29. 47 T67.1-6. 48 T67.7-11. 49 T67.16-19. 50 T67. 51 T68.1-3. -- 12 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 11 and therefore did not bring the document to the police station on this occasion. The complainant disclosed the letter to Detective Wasley upon the officer’s attendance at the residence at a later time, on 18 April 2023. 46 The complainant attended Yarrow Place on 3 May 2020 and participated in a physical examination. The complainant provided a urine sample on this occasion. Cross-examination Drug use 47 The complainant has been using methylamphetamine since he was 24 years of age. The complainant also had friends who used methylamphetamine in 2020. [LM] was not aware that Seroquel was a drug that was commonly used by meth users as a ‘downer’.52 The complainant had never consumed Seroquel when coming down from methylamphetamine.53 [LM] disagreed that methylamphetamine made him angry but said he stated that he felt irritable when wanting to sleep after consuming methylamphetamine. Although the complainant attempted to cease using methylamphetamine, he admitted that he had approximately five or six relapses in total. Accused’s medication 48 The complainant agreed that the accused had an array of medical conditions including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, irritable bowel syndrome and difficulties with his feet. The complainant recalled that the accused also had Type 2 diabetes but previously failed to disclose this in examination in-chief. [LM] was not aware if the accused was taking medication for schizophrenia.54 Complainant’s relationship with accused 49 The complainant had a difficult relationship with the accused and they would argue. [LM] noted that he found the accused frustrating at times.55 [LM] denied assaulting the accused prior to the incident. When [LM] moved into the accused’s residence, he moved into the main bedroom. [LM] denied placing a lock on the accused’s door or installing CCTV cameras throughout the house.56 However, he noted that there was one camera at the front of the house pointing towards the street. [LM] denied that [DW] was a meth user. Police statements 50 On 3 May 2020, [LM] disclosed to police in an affidavit that he had consumed cannabis throughout the day prior to the alleged rape. He denied smoking methylamphetamine on this day.57 [LM] initially agreed telling the police 52 T83.19-22. 53 T25-30. 54 T84.13-14. 55 T84.32-38. 56 T85. 57 T87.1-5. -- 13 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 12 that on 29 April 2025, he had consumed half a gram of methylamphetamine with [LB].58 [LB] supplied the methylamphetamine on this occasion. In a later statement to police, the complainant disclosed to police that he uses methylamphetamine more than cannabis. [LM] admitted that he had used methylamphetamine days before the alleged rape.59 51 Prior to the alleged rape, the complainant was watching TV on the lounge. He was still positioned on the lounge when awoken. In the first affidavit provided to police, the complainant agreed he stated that he was waking up but was unsure what was occurring and thought it may have been a dream.60 [LM] agreed that he would experience vivid dreams. The complainant disagreed with the proposition that the incident giving rise to the charge was in fact a dream.61 Document – Exhibit P1 52 When the complainant travelled to the Christies Beach Police Station to report the incident, he did not bring the document that was drafted and signed by both himself and the accused, but did mention the existence of the document to police.62 His evidence was that the police were not interested in the document. No mention of the note or other admissions of the accused were detailed in the complainant’s first and second affidavits.63 The complainant denied that the reason why this document was not detailed to police on these occasions was due to the fact that it was not in existence.64 The complainant denied drafting the document in 2023, or only bringing its contents to police attention in 2023.65 53 [LM] did not initially disclose to the police that the accused had admitted to drugging him.66 [LM] was unaware whether or not the accused did in fact drug him at the relevant time despite what the document stated.67 When [LM] attended the police station, he stated, ‘I wasn’t sure if I’d been drugged’.68 [LM] denied fabricating an account that the accused had in fact drugged the complainant.69 54 The complainant agreed that on the first two occasions of attending the police station, he did not disclose the existence of this document to police.70 55 [LM] accepted that in an affidavit dated 27 April 2023, he said, ‘After I wrote the note on the 29th of April, I decided to go out of my room to speak to 58 T87.6-10. 59 T87.23-26. 60 T88.8-12. 61 T88.15-22. 62 T88.23-27. 63 T89.1-5. 64 T90.1-3. 65 T90.4-6. 66 T90.17-20. 67 T90. 68 T90.33-36. 69 T91.1-2. 70 T92.2-8. -- 14 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 13 [the accused]’.71 [LM] explained that this was not correct, and that he wrote the document at the kitchen table instead of the bedroom.72 56 [LM] accepted that in the affidavit dated 26 February 2024, he stated, ‘I prepared the letter after being raped when I was in my room’.73 [LM] explained that Detective Wasley may have incorrectly recorded this, and this statement was not in fact correct. The complainant insisted that the document was prepared in the kitchen with the accused.74 [LM]’s evidence was that there were errors within this statement. Complaint 57 On the night in question, [LM] requested [LB] to attend the address. [LB] was unable to attend, and [LM] subsequently became upset. [LM] rejected the proposition that this interaction did not in fact occur.75 [LM] did not disclose to [LB] the document that was tendered as Exhibit P1, but he did disclose to [LB] that the accused made admissions to the charged offending.76 Incident giving rise to the charge 58 [LM] rejected the proposition that the allegation of rape was merely an illusion that the complainant experienced.77 Complainant’s medical condition 59 [LM] suffered from a condition called pilonidal disease, which involved a cyst that develops near a person’s tail bone.78 The complainant had not experienced difficulties with this condition until the alleged sexual assault, which aggravated the condition and resulted in the complainant requiring surgery.79 Re-examination 60 When [LM] first attended the Christies Beach Police Station, he brought with him a number of items. One of these items was a pair of shorts that the complainant was wearing at the time.80 61 [LM] confirmed that there was a lock on the front door of the house as a security measure. The complainant explained that this was due to the accused 71 T92.16-19. 72 T92.20-21. 73 T93.34-36. 74 T94.14-17; T97. 75 T94.34-36. 76 T95.709. 77 T95.1. 78 T95.10-13. 79 T95.18-24. 80 T95.35-37. -- 15 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 14 inviting unknown persons to the residence and the persons would take items from the complainant’s bedroom from time to time.81 [LB] Examination in-chief Background 62 [LB] was 47 years of age at trial. [LB] met the complainant in 2020. They met through an internet dating website. When [LB] first met the complainant, the complainant resided with the accused in Elizabeth.82 [LB] would stay overnight on occasions and sleep in the complainant’s room.83 After commencing a relationship with [LM], the witness would attend the accused’s premises ‘nearly every day, or every second day’.84 When the complainant attended the property, the accused would usually be present.85 Complaint 63 [LB] attended the accused and the complainant’s residence on 29 April 202086 at approximately 8:00 am. The witness received a text message that read, ‘I need you urgently’.87 [LB] was unaware who sent this text message due to recently implanting a new SIM card. She assumed that the text was sent by either a girlfriend or [LM], so she decided to visit [LM].88 [LB] could not recall speaking with the complainant via telephone the night prior to attending the address. 89 64 When [LB] arrived at the property, she initially remained in the car for some time. [LB] understood the complainant to be asleep at this time. [LB] knocked on the front door at 10:00 am. The accused answered the door. [LB] requested to enter the residence to see the complainant. The accused offered [LB] a coffee, and she sat at the kitchen table while waiting for [LM].90 [LB] did not observe any injuries to the accused.91 [LM] opened his door sometime later and was surprised to see [LB]. [LM] then pulled [LB] into the bedroom and locked the door.92 She recalled that the complainant appeared agitated. His dog was also in the room, which she said was uncommon. 65 The complainant then proceeded to make the following disclosure:93 81 T97.29-31. 82 T99.26-32. 83 T99.35-38. 84 T100. 7-10. 85 T100.11-13. 86 T100.14-17. 87 T100.21-27. 88 T100.21-27. 89 T101.7-10. 90 T101.27-37. 91 T102.2-6. 92 T102.27-29. 93 T103.11-24. -- 16 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 15 Q What was the conversation. A He proceeded to - he proceeded to tell me that he fell asleep in the lounge room, which was not normal for him, because he always went to bed, and that he woke up due to [the accused] being on top of him and inside of him. Q Are they the words that he used. A That's correct, yep. Q Did he say anything else. A He broke down, and I just held him. And he didn't, he didn't say anything else after that. Q What happened then. A We just really sat in silence for quite a while because obviously I was shocked, didn't really know what to say apart from comfort him, and saying that it'd be okay. 66 The complainant had not text messaged such disclosure to [LB] prior to this disclosure.94 67 On Sunday 3 May 2020, [LB] drove both [LM] and the accused to the Christies Beach Police Station.95 Cross-examination Complaint 68 When the accused opened the door for [LB] on the night in question, [LB] did not observe his to be crying or upset.96 When [LB] sat at the kitchen table, she did not hear any sound coming from the complainant’s bedroom.97 [LB] denied smoking methylamphetamine with [LM] while they were in [LM]’s bedroom.98 [LB] admitted to having previously smoked methylamphetamine but maintains that she did not on this occasion. While [LB] and [LM] were in the bedroom together, the accused knocked on the door and requested a cigarette. [LM] proceeded to roll a cigarette and passed it to the accused.99 [LB] did not observe the accused to be upset or crying at this time.100 [LB] remained at the premises till approximately 4 o’clock. Document 69 At some point in time when in the complainant’s bedroom, the complainant mentioned a document that the complainant had written. [LB] understood that it 94 T103.34-36. 95 T104.1-8. 96 T104.19-20. 97 T104.27-28. 98 T104.29-36. 99 T105.1-13. 100 T105.16-19. -- 17 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 16 was a document that contained admissions from the accused.101 [LB] only recalled the existence of this document while giving evidence, and had not mentioned its existence to police previously.102 Re-examination 70 [LB]’s evidence was that [LM] showed [LB] the letter while they sat on [LM]’s bed together. [LB] did not read the document herself.103 [LM] discussed the contents of the document with [LB] but did not read the document word for word. [LB] could not recall what the complainant did with the document,104 and she did not see the document again. Dr Lyndall Anne Young Examination-in-chief Background & qualifications 71 In 2020, Dr Young was a medical practitioner. She obtained a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery in 1981 and subsequently obtained a Master’s degree in forensic medicine in 2003.105 In 1974, Dr Young specialised in rape and sexual assault services.106 She is now retired and no longer a registered medical practitioner.107 Examination of complainant 72 Dr Young provided a statement to police on 31 August 2020 relating to an examination involving the complainant. The examination took place at the Royal Adelaide Hospital on 3 May 2020.108 Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Dr Young had to take [LM]’s medical history via telephone.109 A subsequent examination took place in person. 73 Dr Young did not observe any injuries to the complainant’s mouth,110 but noted ‘slight tenderness of neck at the back’ of the complainant.111 74 Dr Young also noted two small 0.75cm perianal lacerations,112 in the 5 and 7 o’clock positions.113 She explained that the perineum is skin between the scrotum and the anus. 101 T105.27-30. 102 T105.33-35. 103 T106. 104 T107.3-6. 105 T109. 106 T109.27-31. 107 T109.35-38. 108 T110. 109 T110.16-25. 110 T111.23-24. 111 T111. 23-31. 112 T113. 113 T113.27-29. -- 18 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 17 75 Dr Young drew the distinction between a laceration, which is an injury, as opposed to an anal fissure which is a medical condition.114 Specifically, a laceration is caused by blunt force trauma. Dr Young agreed that a fissure can be caused by passing a hard stool, significant diarrhoea or an existing medical condition such as Crohn’s disease.115 76 A buccal swab and urine sample were collected from the complainant. No forensic evidence of semen or other biological material was collected, due to the time lapse between the alleged rape and the physical examination.116 Dr Alison Boyd-O’Reilly Examination-in-chief Background & qualifications 77 Dr Boyd-O’Reilly is a registered medical practitioner. Dr Boyd-O’Reilly has a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, which conferred in 2004. She conducted provisional training in 2005 and 2006, and worked in acute care medicine for nine years. Dr Boyd-O’Reilly holds a permanent position as a medical consultant at Yarrow Place,117 providing forensic medical services to persons who have made allegations of sexual assault. Examination of complainant 78 Dr Boyd-O’Reilly was not present for the examination of the complainant on 3 May 2020,118 but she has reviewed the notes and the affidavit authored by Dr Young. Dr Boyd-O’Reilly’s opinion is limited, by virtue of the fact that it is derived solely from the notes of Dr Young, as opposed to a first-hand examination.119 79 Based on Dr Young’s notes of a 4 cm indurated lump in the right buttock, in addition to a sinus opening, Dr Boyd-O’Reilly opined that they were indicative of pilonidal disease.120 These injuries were not considered to be connected to allegations of sexual penetration of the anus.121 Exhibit P4 – two-page medical record for sexual assault examination charts 80 In respect of the 0.75 cm laceration to the perineum, recorded in Exhibit P4, Dr Boyd-O’Reilly explained that a laceration is caused by blunt force trauma which causes the skin to stretch beyond its elastic capacity.122 114 T115. 115 T115.29-36. 116 T116.3-6. 117 T117. 118 T118.3-6. 119 T118.16-24. 120 T120.13-17. 121 T121.2-5. 122 T121.18-21. -- 19 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 18 81 Dr Young had referred to two further lacerations within the perianal skin. Both these lacerations were 0.5 cm in size, one in the 5 o’clock position and the other in the 7 o’clock position.123 Dr Young recorded these injuries as moist and not bleeding. 82 Dr Boyd-O’Reilly explained that an anal fissure is a laceration-type injury that extends out from within the anal skin out externally, most commonly related to the passage of hard stool. It can also be associated with the passage of large amounts of diarrhoea.124 Anal fissures are commonly located at the 12 and 6 o’clock position, and are usually singular. 83 Dr Boyd-O’Reilly opined that lacerations observed by Dr Young at the 5 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions on the perianal skin were caused by blunt force trauma, including penetrative trauma, such as by a penis, finger or object.125 However, Dr Boyd-O’Reilly added that it is possible that the lacerations could be caused by passage of a hard stool, although this is less likely given that there were multiple injuries.126 84 Dr Boyd-O’Reilly stated that it is difficult to age a laceration with accuracy. The recording of a moist base does suggest some level of recency, that is, within hours to days. However, it is difficult to be more precise than this with respect to recency.127 Cross-examination 85 In relation to determining the recency of lacerations to this area of the body specifically, Dr Boyd-O’Reilly noted that this is especially difficult as this is a generally moist area.128 Due to the constant presence of moisture, an injury within the area may not in fact dry out even after some time.129 86 Dr Boyd-O’Reilly opined that it is possible for blunt force trauma to be caused by a person falling down onto an area of the body. The types of lacerations observed in this case, in Dr Boyd-O’Reilly’s opinion, could not be caused by excessive rubbing. Friction-type injuries are likely to cause an abrasion rather than a laceration.130 123 T121.25-38. 124 T122.12-17. 125 T123.10-12. 126 T123.13-17. 127 T124.1-2. 128 T124.26-32. 129 T124.33-36. 130 T125.4-12. -- 20 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 19 Brevet Sergeant Daniel Wasley Examination-in-chief Investigation 87 Brevet Sergeant Wasley was the investigating officer in this matter. As part of the investigation, the Detective provided the accused’s arrest photograph that was taken on 12 May 2020.131 Document 88 Exhibit P1 was produced to the Detective on 18 April 2023 by the complainant132 when police attended the complainant’s address for the purpose of serving a subpoena. The Detective was not aware of the existence of this document prior to this date.133 The document was subsequently submitted for handwriting analysis at the Forensic Science Centre. There were further documents that were submitted to the Forensic Science Centre that contained examples considered to be the accused’s signature. Cross-examination 89 The Detective has been the investigating officer in this matter since the accused’s arrest in 2020. He agreed that at the meeting on 22 December 2020, the complainant did not disclose the existence of Exhibit P1.134 The Detective took an addendum statement from the complainant on 16 April 2020, and again the complainant made no mention of the document Exhibit P1.135 The Detective confirmed that there were no notes or records taken in relation to the letter prior to the complainant providing the letter to police on 18 April 2023.136 Defence case 90 The accused called one witness in this trial, Professor Mangoni. I repeat that this is a summary of the evidence, and I have taken into account the entirety of the defence case. Professor Arduino Mangoni Examination-in-chief Background & qualifications 91 Professor Mangoni is a clinical pharmacologist. The witness graduated medicine in 1991 in Milan and was awarded a PhD in 2003. Professor Mangoni has been a registered clinical pharmacologist and general physician in Australia since 2005 and is currently a senior consultant for the Department of 131 Exhibit P5. 132 T126.37-38. 133 T127.2-8. 134 T127.35-38. 135 T128.1-4. 136 T128.5-12. -- 21 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 20 Pharmacology at Flinders Medical Centre.137 Professor Mangoni prepared a report on the general effects of pharmacological effects of methylamphetamine and cannabis on a person, which was tendered as Exhibit D12 in this trial. I have regard to the entirety of the report and its contents when assessing Professor Mangoni’s evidence. Methylamphetamine effects 92 Professor Mangoni opined that persons that use methylamphetamine have an increased likelihood of having episodes of paranoia or delusion compared to persons that do not use methylamphetamine.138 The paranoia and delusions are part of a particular state of mind also known as psychosis, which can be induced by several drugs, including methylamphetamine.139 Delusions are common for persons suffering psychosis and can include a number of abnormal feelings. There is a known association between the intake of methylamphetamine and aggressive behaviour. Persons with a chronic intake of methylamphetamine have a higher risk of having or exhibiting violent or aggressive behaviour.140 93 There are also hallucinogenic effects that can occur from methylamphetamine use. The hallucinogenic effects are a manifestation of psychosis which can occur in persons that take amphetamine either acutely or chronically.141 Professor Mangoni opined that a person who consumes 1 gram of methylamphetamine a fortnight, would be considered to be taking a high dosage.142 Cannabis 94 Cannabis from a purely pharmacological point of view when it is used acutely for a short period of time might also exert a sedative effect and may counteract the stimulant effect of methylamphetamine on the brain and the peripheral nervous system.143 Cannabis and methylamphetamine 95 Professor Mangoni gave evidence of the effects of cannabis and methylamphetamine when used together. In terms of a chronic use, there is evidence that an individual taking both methylamphetamine and cannabis might suffer from a more severe degree of cognitive impairment in terms of psychological performance.144 There is also an interaction between methylamphetamine and cannabis use in terms of risk of psychosis. Both drugs can induce a psychotic episode. There were also recent studies in Australia that illustrated that methylamphetamine use can increase the risk of psychosis in the weeks following the use. The risks of psychosis are greater when cannabis is 137 T135. 138 T135.27-30. 139 T135.31-33. 140 T136.27-33. 141 T137.1-2. 142 T138.17-28. 143 T137.11-16. 144 T137.31-37. -- 22 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 21 consumed concurrently. It follows that, an individual consuming both drugs is more likely to exhibit clinical manifestations such as paranoia, delusions, hallucinations, incoherent behaviour and aggressiveness.145 Effects on dreams 96 Methylamphetamine has been known to increase the likelihood of vivid dreams. The effect of cannabis on sleep from a pharmacological perspective reduces the amount of time of sleep when persons dream.146 Both the methylamphetamine and the cannabis component during the withdrawal phase increases the likelihood of dreams that are vivid and can be interpreted by the individual as real.147 Cross-examination Effects of methylamphetamine and cannabis 97 Professor Mangoni confirmed that users of methylamphetamine and cannabis are more likely than non-drug users to develop psychosis.148 It is also possible for an individual who is only using cannabis to still develop psychosis. A user of methylamphetamine can also develop psychosis.149 If an individual is a user of both cannabis and methylamphetamine it does not necessarily follow that they will suffer psychosis.150 If an individual does develops psychosis, it does not necessarily mean that they will have such symptoms for the entirety of their life.151 The effect of psychosis induced by drug use is acute and will normally last for about half a day to a day.152 98 Professor Mangoni agreed that a user of both drugs might develop psychosis on one occasion but not experience psychosis on a subsequent occasion.153 The witness stated that from a pharmacological point of view, having suffered an episode of psychosis previously can increase the risk of future episodes of psychosis.154 Delusions 99 Both delusions and hallucinations can be symptoms of psychosis.155 Professor Mangoni gave evidence regarding five types of paranoid delusions. Paranoid delusion is one of the most common forms of delusions and relates to both fear and persecutory delusions.156 Persecutory delusions are most common in Professor Mangoni’s clinical experience. Another common delusion is reference 145 T138.1-13. 146 T139.1-2. 147 T139.11-16. 148 T140.5-9. 149 T140.14-21. 150 T140.26-35. 151 T141.1-8. 152 T141.2-8. 153 T141.20-27. 154 T142.13-16. 155 T143.19-23. 156 T144.8-11. -- 23 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 22 delusions where a person may believe that someone is speaking to them when in fact they are not. Professor Mangoni gave evidence in relation to grandiosity delusions which were less common and borne from schizophrenia as opposed to drug use.157 The witness also gave evidence in respect to control delusions, in which an individual believes they are under the control of someone or something.158 The witness noted that a delusion is not a sensory experience. It is a belief in something that is not in fact real.159 If a person has a sensory experience of observing an individual on top of them, or feeling a penis inside their anus, this is not commonly characterised as a delusion.160 Hallucinations 100 Hallucinations, on the other hand, can be sensory. An individual may experience auditory, visual and tactile hallucinations.161 In the context of methylamphetamine-induced psychosis, the auditory and visual hallucinations are relatively more common in an individual experiencing psychosis compared to tactile hallucinations.162 It is common for an individual to experience a mixture of hallucinations rather than one specific type. 101 Auditory hallucinations can include hearing voices. Visual hallucinations most commonly involve an individual seeing flashes of light or seeing objects that are not real.163 Professor Mangoni agreed that it would be rare for an individual to experience all three types of hallucinations together when under the influence of methylamphetamine and cannabis.164 102 An individual experiencing the feeling of a person being on top of them with a penis in their anus, observing that person, reacting to that person and having a conversation with that person, would all be described as exceedingly a rare type of hallucination with an individual suffering from drug-induced psychosis.165 Professor Mangoni was not aware of any scenario where a person has had a hallucination that is this complex.166 There may be some isolated case reports that might describe some very unique sort of circumstances, but the witness was unable to find any such case in the published literature.167 Dreams 103 A vivid dream can be described as experiencing a dream in which the person feels as if the features of the dream are real. An individual who uses methylamphetamine and cannabis is, in certain circumstances, more likely to 157 T147. 158 T148.2-11. 159 T150.1-2. 160 T150.9-29. 161 T150.33-38. 162 T151.5-9. 163 T152.1-10. 164 T153.1-2. 165 T153; T154. 166 T154.19-21. 167 T154.24-27. -- 24 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 23 experience vivid dreams.168 The effects of cannabis on vivid dreams depends on the duration and pattern of use.169 104 If an individual uses cannabis initially for just a few days or weeks, there will be a reduced risk of experiencing vivid dreams. However, if there is persistent consumption of cannabis for longer than one or two weeks, this diminishes the time of developing vivid dreams, and if a person ceased taking cannabis there is a phase of cannabis withdrawal, then a paradoxical effect occurs and increases the risk of vivid dreams.170 Professor Mangoni also gave evidence that methylamphetamine also increases the risk of vivid dreams. 105 Vivid dreams can also take place whilst a similar event is happening to the person while dreaming.171 Professor Mangoni agreed that when waking from a dream, there is a period of time after waking from a dream in which there is a difficulty for that person to perceive whether they still experiencing a dream or they are experiencing reality.172 This also occurs for persons who are users of methylamphetamine and cannabis, albeit that the degree of confusion will usually be longer for these individuals.173 106 Professor Mangoni agreed that in circumstances in which an individual is experiencing a dream or a vivid dream in which they are being sexually assaulted, upon waking, they may believe that they have been sexually assaulted, even if no other person is in the room with them.174 A person may then continue to go about their day in the aftermath of this dream perceiving that the dream was in fact real. If an individual was to dream that they had been sexually assaulted and woke to find their pants and underwear around their ankles and a pain in their anus, this would be a different perception that such a dream was real.175 Addresses of counsel Prosecution closing address 107 The prosecution submitted that if the complainant’s evidence is accepted beyond reasonable doubt as truthful and reliable, then the charge of rape has been proved. Complainant’s evidence 108 Mr Plummer submitted that [LM] presented as upfront, no-nonsense and a man who, despite the long passage of time, was doing his best to recount what occurred approximately five years ago, in spite of the emotional pain that he clearly suffered. It was submitted that the complainant did not shy away from tough 168 T155.10-13. 169 T155.34-35. 170 T156.3-7. 171 T157.4-8. 172 T157.32-38. 173 T158.8-12. 174 T158.28-32. 175 T159.1-5. -- 25 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 24 questions on topics that might cause others to see him in a negative light. The way in which the complainant gave the evidence of his drug use and relapses were honest and reflected the way in which the complainant gave all of his evidence, including the evidence in relation to the charged offending. The prosecution asserted that the complainant was not a sophisticated witness, but he was truthful. Drug use 109 On the topic of the complainant’s drug use, [LM] gave evidence that he used roughly a gram of methylamphetamine and 2.5 to 5 grams of cannabis per fortnight. The complainant’s evidence was that his girlfriend, [DW], helped him stop the methylamphetamine use during December 2019, January and February of 2020, however [LM] acknowledged that he had relapses. [LM] had been using methylamphetamine since he was 24. He is now 38 and, at the time of the alleged offence, he had been using methylamphetamine for about 14 years. 110 Mr Plummer highlighted that the complainant gave evidence that methylamphetamine would 'Keep me up, keep me alert, keep me busy, getting things done a lot quicker than normal’ and 'I'd be up for a couple of days, I should have been getting a lot more sleep'. In relation to the effect of cannabis, the complainant stated that he would consume the drug to assist him with eating more, sleeping easier and assist with the cessation of methylamphetamine use at the time. Alleged offending 111 Counsel for the prosecution summarised the evidence as follows. 112 [LM] fell asleep on the lounge with the accused home. Nobody else was present. [LM] had not smoked any methylamphetamine on the day in question but had smoked approximately 2 grams of cannabis. [LM] awoke to feeling something on top of him. [LM]’s stomach was sore and 'it felt like my bum was going to explode'. He had a short pain in his rectum all the way to the bellybutton and believed he may be dreaming at the time. 113 The accused had both of his hands around [LM]’s waist with the accused’s penis inside his rectum, thrusting back and forward. This continued for approximately 30 seconds to a minute as initially the complainant thought it was a dream. The complainant then pushed the accused off, pulled his pants up and struck the accused to the face with a closed fist. The complainant’s evidence was that he hit the accused near his eyes and forehead and said words to the effect of, 'What the fuck are you doing'. Medical evidence 114 The medical evidence was of particular significance to the prosecution case. Firstly, of significance was the .75 cm laceration to the perineum that, in the opinion of Dr Boyd-O'Reilly, was caused by blunt-force trauma. The cause could have been from a penis, object or fist that has come into contact to this area. There were two further lacerations to the perianal skin, both measuring .5 cm; one -- 26 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 25 in the 5 o'clock position, another in the 7 o'clock that were described as 'moist and not bleeding'. Dr Boyd-O'Reilly could not age the lacerations, but the recording of a moist base does suggest some level of recency. 115 The prosecution submitted this was consistent with the injuries having been sustained on the night of 28 April. Both lacerations were within the perianal skin and not within the anal canal and no anal fissures were identified. Importantly, Dr Boyd-O'Reilly referred to the number of lacerations. The evidence was that fissures are most common where there is a single observable abnormality. Although it is possible that the lacerations could have been due to the passage of a hard stool, this was less likely. 116 It was submitted the significance of the medical evidence is that it corroborates the evidence of the complainant. I will return to this issue later in these Reasons. Other corroborating evidence 117 The presence of the staining on the underwear that was swabbed by the DNA forensic scientist returned a positive presumptive test for blood. The presence of that staining is consistent with the complainant's account of having seen the same substance in his bedroom and goes against the hypothesis of this incident being a figment of the complainant's imagination. 118 The injury to the accused's face is consistent with the complainant having struck the accused the moment that he realised that he was being sexually assaulted by the accused. This is so, notwithstanding the photo was taken approximately two weeks later after the accused was arrested on 12 May. 119 In relation to the absence of DNA, the act of intercourse is alleged to have occurred whilst the complainant's underwear was around his ankles, although he pulled his underwear up immediately after. The complainant removed the underwear and described seeing ‘shit inside of them and blood’. [LM] then had a shower. In the circumstances, it was submitted it is unsurprising that there was no DNA evidence implicating the accused. Exhibit P1 - document of [LM] 120 Mr Plummer submitted that the document is admissible but not as an admission to the charged offence of itself capable of proving guilt, on the part of the accused. The prosecution submitted that the document is relevant as it supports the evidence of the complainant regarding the narrative of the conversation that took place between the complainant and the accused in the kitchen. 121 The other relevance of the document relates to the topic raised by defence relating to paranoid delusion, hallucination and vivid dreams. The prosecution submitted that the document was signed by the accused at the time that the complainant states that it was signed and that it is relevant to whether at that time -- 27 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 26 the complainant was suffering from some delusion only insofar as it relates to his evidence about whether that document was created then. Complaint 122 The complainant’s evidence on the topic of complaint was that 'I let her know what happened between [the accused] and I ... because I'd been sexually assaulted by [the accused]'. The complainant gave evidence that it was the next day that [LB] arrived, and they were in the bedroom. [LB] gave the complainant a hug and the complainant stated, '[the accused] raped me and that I hit him'.176 123 [LB]’s evidence was that she received a text message on a different phone than her normal phone. The text message said, 'I need you urgently'. [LB]’s evidence was that [LM] pulled her into his room, locked the door and appeared agitated and emotional. [LM] then disclosed to [LB] that he fell asleep in the lounge room, which was not normal for him as he always went to bed, and that he woke up to the accused being on top and inside of him. 124 The prosecution acknowledged the inconsistency of the text conversation the night before the incident. However, the prosecution submitted that this inconsistency does not affect the credibility and reliability of the complainant in relation to the charged offending. 125 Mr Plummer submitted that, even if the court is not satisfied of the text message sent by the complainant on the night of the offending relating to the sexual assault but is satisfied that a text message was sent stating 'I need you urgently', and the disclosure made the following day, the evidence does show consistency of conduct on the part of the complainant nonetheless. 126 The prosecution acknowledged that [LB] experienced significant difficulty when giving evidence and [LB] clearly had difficulty with her memory regarding the events in question. Pharmacology evidence 127 In relation to the pharmacology evidence, the prosecution submitted that the complainant’s description of the events was inconsistent with that account either being as a result of a delusion, hallucination or a vivid dream that the complainant has understood afterwards as being true. Defence closing address 128 Defence counsel ultimately submitted that the allegation arises as a consequence of the complainant’s methylamphetamine and cannabis use and that [LM] had suffered delusions or hallucinations or dreams about the allegation of rape and due to the use of those drugs. It was submitted [LM] believed the allegation to be true, but they in fact were not. 176 T62.33. -- 28 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 27 Complainant’s evidence 129 Defence counsel submitted that the complainant was relatively open about his use of methylamphetamine and cannabis. The complainant started using methylamphetamine at 24 years of age and cannabis at 23 years of age. On the day before the alleged rape, [LM] smoked approximately 2 grams of cannabis during the day. Despite stating that the complainant’s ex-girlfriend was weaning him from methylamphetamine use, after she left, [LM] continued to use methylamphetamine, agreeing to having five to six relapses since she had left. [LM] agreed that he used methylamphetamine more than cannabis and basically used cannabis to calm down from methylamphetamine to assist with sleep. [LM] used methylamphetamine during the days before the alleged rape. Defence counsel submitted that the court cannot be confident that the complainant did not cease using methylamphetamine prior to the alleged rape. Delusions, hallucinations and vivid dreams 130 Defence counsel emphasised that Professor Mangoni gave evidence that there is a significant likelihood that dreams experienced whilst under the influence of cannabis and methylamphetamine can be perceived as real occasions upon waking. The question about whether the complainant, who admits to having vivid dreams, was suffering from psychosis, hallucinations, or a vivid dream and the alleged rape raises reasonable doubt about whether the offending occurred. The evidence that the complainant had an ongoing text conversation with [LB] was further evidence of the complainant's delusions. 131 It was submitted that Professor Mangoni gave evidence that a person experiencing methylamphetamine-induced paranoid delusions may behave irrationally by exhibiting aggressive and violent behaviour. Defence submitted that it was a reasonable possibility that the complainant exited the bedroom to confront the accused about a delusional dream being experienced with respect to being raped, and out of anger and frustration, hit the accused. Exhibit P1 - document of [LM] 132 The complainant gave evidence that despite having a note stating that the accused had drugged and raped him, [LM] inconsistently disclosed to police that he was unsure if he had been in fact drugged by the accused. 133 Defence counsel highlighted that the complainant did not provide the document to police until 2023. It was submitted that the method by which the document had been disclosed was extremely unusual and should raise suspicion. The document that has evidence of the accused purportedly admitted to the offending was not brought to the attention of the police until 2023. It was submitted that the irregularity surrounding the circumstances of Exhibit P1 being brought into existence and, perhaps more relevantly, not disclosed to police at an earlier time, adversely impact upon the credibility of the complainant. -- 29 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 28 134 Defence counsel submitted that the complainant's explanations as to why he did not bring the document to the police’s attention was not believable in the circumstances. Medical evidence 135 Defence counsel submitted the complainant underwent a medical examination approximately four days after the alleged rape. There was no bruising to the relevant areas of the body and no internal lacerations or fissures. The experts opined that the lacerations were caused by blunt force trauma. However, the experts could not rule out the passage of a hard stool causing the perianal injuries, but noted that it was unlikely. Nevertheless, it was submitted that blunt force trauma to the region leading to the small lacerations observed could possibly have been caused by a fall. Thus, it was submitted that it is not an unreasonable possibility for blunt force trauma in this region to result from a fall whilst under the influence of illicit substances. Inconsistences 136 Defence counsel submitted that there were inconsistences between the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of [LB]. This included evidence regarding the broken phone. It was submitted that insofar as there was any inconsistency between the evidence of the complainant and [LB], [LB]’s evidence should be preferred. 137 It was submitted that the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence reach a critical mass to discount [LM]’s credibility and reliability. Implausibility 138 Defence submitted that there is no evidence that the accused possessed any drugs capable of rendering the complainant incapable of responding to being raped. The complainant had lived with the accused for approximately five months at the time of the alleged rape. For all intents and purposes, the alleged rape occurred in the early hours of 29 April 2020, somewhat out of the blue, with no prior suggestion that the accused desired sex. 139 Ultimately, it was the defence submission that the complainant's chronic use of drugs and the evidence of Professor Mangoni all point to the allegation of rape being brought about by the psychotic beliefs of the complainant while he was suffering delusions, hallucinations and a vivid dream. Discussion Section 34R of the Evidence Act (EA) direction 140 There was evidence before the Court that alleged the accused had engaged in various forms of discreditable conduct unconnected with the alleged offence. 141 The complainant referred to prior poor conduct generally on the part of the accused, as well as sexual conduct engaged in between the accused and the dog of -- 30 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 29 the complainant. There were also suggestions made of the accused engaging in sexual activity with a household appliance, the accused having ongoing disputes with neighbours and the accused not being able to be around his nieces and nephews. There was also evidence before the Court that the accused had engaged in a number of previous similar sexual interactions with the complainant which were disavowed by the prosecution. 142 There was evidence that the accused had previously drugged the complainant in the context of these previous allegations of sexual contact between the accused and the complainant. This was not relied upon by the prosecution. 143 Insofar as those aspects of the evidence might be used in a manner adverse to the accused, I give them no weight. 144 This evidence has no bearing on the charged offending in a way that could be considered or used adverse to the accused. Insofar as it may be required, I remind myself that simply because the accused is alleged to have engaged in this discreditable conduct, it would be wrong and unfair to reason that because he has engaged in the categories of discreditable conduct outlined above, that he is the type of person that would have committed the charged offence. Complaint 145 The law governing the admission of the complaint is governed by s 34M of the EA, which provides: 34M—Evidence relating to complaint in sexual cases (1) This section abolishes the common law relating to recent complaint in sexual cases. Note— See Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460; Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 (2) In a trial of a charge of a sexual offence, no suggestion or statement may be made to the jury that a failure to make, or a delay in making, a complaint of a sexual offence is of itself of probative value in relation to the alleged victim's credibility or consistency of conduct. (3) Despite any other rule of law or practice, evidence related to the making of an initial complaint of an alleged sexual offence is admissible in a trial of a charge of the sexual offence. Examples— Evidence may be given by any person about— • when the complaint was made and to whom; • the content of the complaint; • how the complaint was solicited; -- 31 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 30 • why the complaint was made to a particular person at a particular time; • why the alleged victim did not make the complaint at an earlier time. (4) If evidence referred to in subsection (3) is admitted in a trial, the judge must direct the jury that— (a) it is admitted— (i) to inform the jury as to how the allegation first came to light; and (ii) as evidence of the degree of consistency of conduct of the alleged victim; and (b) it is not admitted as evidence of the truth of what was alleged; and (c) there may be varied reasons why the alleged victim of a sexual offence has made a complaint of the offence at a particular time or to a particular person, but that, otherwise, it is a matter for the jury to determine the significance (if any) of the evidence in the circumstances of the particular case. (5) It is not necessary that a particular form of words be used in giving the direction under subsection (4). (6) In this section— complaint, in relation to a sexual offence, includes a report or any other disclosure (whether to a police officer or otherwise); initial complaint, in relation to a sexual offence, includes information provided by way of elaboration of the initial complaint (whether provided at the time of the initial complaint or at a later time). 146 The evidence of complaint led at trial relates to [LM]’s disclosure to [LB]. The relevant evidence was that [LM] disclosed to [LB] that he awoke to the accused on top of him.177 The disclosure took place in the bedroom of the complainant. [LB] described the complainant as being agitated and emotional. [LB] gave the complainant a hug and the complainant stated, '[the accused] raped me and that I hit him'. 147 An inconsistency arose on the evidence as to whether the initial complaint occurred via telephone call or text message prior to the complainant’s disclosures made in the bedroom. As I understand, the prosecution position is that the initial complaint relates to the disclosures made in the bedroom and the prior telephone call is not relied upon given the inconsistency that exists between [LM] and [LB]’s evidence. 148 The issue of apparent inconsistency as to the status of the complaint between the mobile telephone communications in the aftermath of the incident giving rise 177 T94.22-27. -- 32 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 31 to the charge and the in person conversation the following day is reconcilable. Both the complainant and [LB] are uncertain as to the specifics of any mobile telephone communications. The practical effect of both witnesses is that no detail was provided about what may or may not have been disclosed. The mobile telephone communications formed a prelude to the disclosure of allegations made by the complainant to [LB] in person the following day. On both accounts, no specific details were provided as to the alleged rape via telephone. Whilst there is a discrepancy in the accounts as to the mobile telephone communications, these discrepancies did not amount to specific inconsistencies as to the allegations giving rise to the offence itself. 149 These inconsistencies are, of course, relevant to an overall assessment of the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, but they do not render the evidence of the in person conversation between the two the following day, when the complainant disclosed that ‘the accused raped me and I hit him’, inadmissible. 150 This complaint is admissible as the initial complaint. The complainant confirms this was when he was sexually offended against by the accused and it is referable to the charged offence. I am satisfied that the disclosure complies with the statutory pre-requires for admission, pursuant to s 34M of the EA. 151 The disclosure reveals how the allegations came to light and demonstrates consistency of conduct.178 It is not admitted as the truth of what was alleged and there may be varied reasons why the complainant has made the complaint at a particular time to [LB]. Defence criticisms 152 During the course of submissions, a number of criticisms were made regarding the evidence of the complainant. I summarise the more prominent of those submissions here. It should be noted that whilst this is a summary of the more prominent criticisms, I have taken the entirety of the submissions of defence counsel into account. 153 Defence has suggested that the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence is fatally flawed in a number of ways, including the unreliability of his account generally as a consequence of his drug use at the relevant time and the complete implausibility of the complainant withholding what is, it was suggested in effect, a complete confession to the charged offence from the investigating police. 154 As to the latter, defence submits that it is incomprehensible that the victim of such serious sexual offending would withhold an admission to the alleged behaviour. 178 R v H, T (2010) 108 SASR 86; R v El Rifai [2012] SASCFC 98. -- 33 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 32 Status of Exhibit P1 155 I do not regard Exhibit P1 to be an admission by the accused capable of itself of proving the charged conduct. It was not suggested as much by the prosecution. 156 Whilst the handwriting evidence is inconclusive as to whether the signature on the document is that of the accused, an assessment of the evidence of the surrounding circumstances in which the document was brought into existence is instructive. It provides support to the evidence of the complainant that, following the incident giving rise to the charge, the complainant confronted the accused regarding his offending behaviour, and an acknowledgment against self interest was made by the accused. 157 Whilst the document, Exhibit P1, is not evidence of a stand alone admission of criminal offending owing to the fact that there is no evidence that the accused ever read the document, I accept the evidence of the complainant about the conversation between the complainant and accused at the time the document was brought into existence. I also accept that the accused signed the exhibit. The document is evidence that supports the evidence of the complainant regarding his conversation with the accused when he confronted him the morning following the alleged rape. Part of that evidence-in-chief of the complainant on this topic was as follows: Q Did he say anything about the incident that occurred the night before. A No, he just, he agreed that he done what he done, but he didn't really go into detail or anything. Q When you say that, what words did you use and what words did he use. A I just asked him why he done what he's done to me, he said he don't know. Q Is that all he said. A As far as I can remember, it was a while ago. Q Was there anything else said during that conversation. A Yeah, it got a little bit heated when he told me that he was doing it to my dog. I asked him 'Why the hell would you do that to an animal as well as a human?', but he didn't really say much, he just kept crying a lot. HIS HONOUR Q [LM], when you say 'why he's done what he's done', were they the exact words that you used, or did you ask him about what he had done, using different words … the actual words that were used and the actual conversation that you say you had is very important. So did you say to him 'Why did you, why have you done what you've done?'. A I swore at him and asked him why the fuck he done what he done to me like. -- 34 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 33 XN Q Are they the words that you used 'Why have you done what you've done to me?'. A Yes, and I - obviously there was swearing involved. HIS HONOUR Q Well, don't hold back on my account … what you actually said is very important. A Yes. XN Q What exactly, in the words that you used, what did you say. A I asked why the fuck he had done what he had done to me last night, I called him an arsehole for it, I called him a paedophile, asked if he's done anything to Bella before, my dog, and he said he has so I went off at him and swore at him and said 'You're a fucking cunt, like why would you do that?' and yeah, he just more or less kept crying. Q And exactly what words did he use. A He said he - he said that after he left his wife he was always sexually active and that he was even like having sex with vacuum cleaners and stuff like that, yeah, even that was surprising, but more or less he just kept going on about if I was going to go and report it. Q Was there anything else he said. A Not that I can remember.179 158 The complainant then gave evidence regarding the circumstances in which the document was brought into existence. The complainant gave evidence that the document was brought into existence at the kitchen table during the course of the above conversation. The evidence-in-chief of the complainant continued: Q Going back to the document that you wrote on this day, where were you when you wrote that document. A At the table with [T, D]. Q Was that during the same occasion that you were sitting there and having that conversation that you've just given evidence about. A Yes. Q Who wrote that document. A I did. Q Did you sign that document. 179 T53.15-T54.27. -- 35 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 34 A I did. MR PLUMMER: May I ask that the witness is provided with this document. XN Q Do you recognise that document. A Yes, I do, of course. Q Is that the document to which you refer. A Yes, this is exact copy. Q But that is the original, you agree with that. A Yes. Q You can see that it's been laminated. A Yes. Q You didn't laminate that, did you. A I did not, I did not do that I didn't put the sticker on it either. Q Looking at the bottom there is the name '[LM]'. A Yes. Q With a date of '30.03.1987'. A Yes. Q Is that your signature underneath it. A Yes. Q Is this the document that you wrote at that kitchen table. A Yes, it is. MFI #P1 DOCUMENT AUTHORED BY [LM] MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION. Q What are the circumstances in which you came to write the content in this document. A What do you mean by that sorry? Q Why did you write this document. A It was just sort of in my nature to do this with [T, D] because, yeah, like I said, with the car incident, with the neighbours and stuff like that I'd get [T, D] to sign paperwork just so, 'cause the next-door neighbours we always had trouble with [T, D] going over there, he even broke into their house and everything like that so. It was just something that I'd do to ease my own mind with what happened with the car and the neighbours, so I think it's best to have a paper trail. -- 36 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 35 Q Where was [T, D] as you were sitting at the kitchen table writing this. A He was still - I was on the end here and he was on the other end (INDICATES). Q Can you explain to the court how you went about writing this document. A It was just - I just thought it was the best thing for me to do. HIS HONOUR Q Did you discuss anything while you were writing it out … A Yeah, of course, yes I did. Q All right, tell us about that. A Well, going back to what we were talking about before this is where I was asking him like why - why, why did he do it to me, if he's done it to anybody else, when he owned up telling me that he's done it to my dog. So this was all done at the same time with me having that conversation.180 159 The complaint witness, [LB], stated that she saw a document consistent with Exhibit P1 the day following the alleged rape. This evidence assumes prominence given the strident criticism levelled by defence counsel regarding the failure of the complainant to provide this apparently devastating document to investigating police at an earlier time. 160 I am satisfied the evidence proves that Exhibit P1 was brought into existence in the circumstances described by the complainant, namely on the day following the alleged rape at the kitchen table in the course of a conversation, during which the complainant confronted the accused about the charged incident. The fact that the complainant misspelt the accused’s first name in the body of the document, whereas the signing clause written by the accused has his first name correctly spelt, is a piece of evidence that is consistent with the evidence of the complainant, in that he authored the entirety of the document, except for the contribution of the accused in writing his name, date of birth and signature. 161 Further, the evidence of [LB] seeing a document consistent with the appearance of Exhibit P1 the following day lends support to this conclusion. The defence hypothesis: a vivid dream 162 Noting that it is not for the defence to prove anything, it was suggested as an alternative hypothesis that the accused had erroneously imagined the incident giving rise to the charge as part of a graphic false dream. As I understand the argument advanced by defence, as a consequence of the complainant’s drug use, the complainant mistakenly substituted fiction for fact in terms of the charged incident. In essence, it was suggested the complainant’s use of 180 T55.15-T57.10. -- 37 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 36 methylamphetamine and cannabis induced a detachment from reality, leading to the complainant’s belief that he had been anally raped. 163 In support of this proposition, defence led evidence from Professor Mangoni. Notwithstanding the evidence of Professor Mangoni regarding the potential for consumption of methylamphetamine to precipitate hallucinations or detachments from reality, the evidence in this case, which I accept, is that the complainant did not consume methylamphetamine on the day and night of the alleged rape. In those circumstances, the level of methylamphetamine consumption at the relevant time on the part of the complainant was unlikely to produce the psychotic symptoms suggested as being productive of the complainant’s belief of the extant allegations. 164 On this topic, under cross-examination Professor Mangoni gave the following evidence regarding use of cannabis and methylamphetamine: Q Just because somebody is a user of both of those two drugs does not necessarily mean that they will suffer psychosis. A Doesn't necessarily mean they will develop psychosis, is a more relative risk compared to population but obviously one of the things that we have to bear in mind that we respond individually to these drugs, so I'm not saying that in 100 people taking methamphetamine all these 100 people will develop psychosis, but the risk is higher compared to a population not on methamphetamine. Q If somebody is a user of both of those drugs and they develop psychosis, that does not necessarily mean that they have the symptoms of that psychosis for the whole of their life. A That is correct. Normally in people that develop psychosis while they are on methamphetamine and/or cannabis, the effects will normally, the acute effect will normally last for about half a day, a day, there have been cases where the symptoms have perpetuated indefinitely but in the vast majority of individuals these effects would probably be by half a day or a day. Q By that do you mean that the symptoms might remain for half a day or a day if the person stops using the drugs. A That's right, yes.181 165 The complainant gave evidence that on the day in question he smoked approximately 2 grams of cannabis. Professor Mangoni’s evidence was that withdrawal from cannabis use might cause adverse psychological effects.182 I accept the evidence of the complainant that he smoked cannabis on the day in question. This reduces the prospect of cannabis withdrawal precipitating psychotic episode on the part of the complainant. In any event, the foundation of the defence hypothesis as to the complainant hallucinating in part relies on the ‘synergistic effect’183 of taking both drugs to increase the likelihood of hallucination as an 181 T140.26-T141.11. 182 T137.7-24. 183 T138.14. -- 38 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 37 explanation for the allegations brought by the complainant. I accept the evidence of the complainant that he did not take methylamphetamine on the day and night of the alleged offending. 166 Further, in relation to the physically graphic nature of the allegations, Professor Mangoni opined such physical hallucinations are uncommon. Under cross-examination, Professor Mangoni gave the following evidence: Q So a person experiencing what might otherwise be a realistic event, so that might be, for example, standing in a courtroom and experiencing the voices and seeing and the touching, all together you would consider that to be an exceedingly rare hallucination, wouldn't you. A It would be an uncommon hallucination, yes. Q And I suggest that somebody experiencing the feeling of somebody being on top of them with a penis in their anus, seeing that person, reacting to that person and having a conversation with that person, that would all be described as exceedingly rare type of hallucination with somebody suffering from drug-induced psychosis. A The tactile component of the picture that you describe could be considered a tactile hallucination. The fact that an individual reacts to start talking to that of the individual is not part of an hallucination. Q I just want to be clear about my question. A Yes. Q The hallucination, that is, there is the tactile. A Yes. Q The feeling of the person being on top of them. A Yes. Q As well as the feeling of a penis inside their anus. A Yes. Q And the pain there. A Yes. Q The seeing of that person, seeing the visual hallucination at the same time. A Yes. Q And then the auditory, that is the words that are spoken - A Yes. Q - and their reaction, all of those three things occurring, first of all you would describe that as a very complex hallucination. -- 39 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 38 A Yes. Thank you for clarifying, I agree with you, it would be a complex hallucination, very uncommon, yes. Q Very uncommon. A Very uncommon, yes.184 167 Having regard to all of the evidence, I reject that a drug induced hallucination or detachment from reality are reasonably possible explanations for the evidence of the complaint that he was anally raped by the accused. Complainant’s suggestion of having been drugged 168 Exhibit P1 references that the accused ‘has been drugging me with his medication’. The complainant gave evidence to the effect that the accused admitted to him during the conversation at the kitchen table that the accused had been drugging him with the accused’s medication (which the complainant understood to be Seroquel). The accused did not say when this is supposed to have occurred. 169 Under cross-examination, the complainant agreed that he did not tell the police during his first interview that he had been drugged. His explanation was that he was not sure if he had, in fact, been drugged. In a subsequent affidavit provided some 12 months later, the complainant stated that he was ‘highly suspicious’ that he had been drugged. Again under cross-examination, the complainant clarified that he ‘had been told [by the accused], but I didn’t know’. 170 Whilst it may be curious that the complainant did not disclose his suspicions about being drugged to the police, this non-disclosure is explicable by the complainant being cautious about not making allegations about which he could not be certain. It is demonstrable of restraint on the part of the complainant. The significance of the medical evidence 171 Defence initially challenged the ability of Dr Boyd-O’Reilly to give opinion evidence based on the clinical observations of the now retired Dr Lyndall Young. Ultimately, the challenge to the admissibility of Dr Boyd-O’Reilly’s opinions was abandoned, with defence focusing upon the suggested limited weight to be given to the opinions, given that Dr Boyd-O’Reilly did not perform the physical examination herself. The suggested disadvantages were ultimately not pursued by the defence. 172 The medical evidence in this case is also important. On the prosecution case, the presence, nature and location of the injuries to the perineum of the complainant are consistent with the episode of anal intercourse described by the complainant. 173 It is uncontroversial that when the complainant was examined by Dr Young on 3 May 2020, injuries were observed to the perianal skin of the complainant. 184 T153.18-T154.18. -- 40 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 39 174 Relevantly, the injuries were perianal lacerations at the 5 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions. 175 Having regard to the contemporaneous clinical notes made by Dr Young, Dr Boyd-O’Reilly opined that the perianal lacerations at the 5 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions were caused by blunt force trauma, which included as a possible cause, a penis. The medical evidence also explored the possibility of alternative explanations for the perianal injuries, including falling onto an object, or the passing of hard stool. 176 The complainant did not give evidence of falling onto an object with his anus. The medical evidence was to the effect that passing of a hard stool was unlikely to have caused the injuries. 177 Having regard to all of the evidence and noting the arguments advanced by defence regarding the possible alternative explanations for the perianal injuries, I exclude as a reasonable possibility any alternative hypothesis, such as the complainant falling onto an object, or the passing of hard stool, as being the cause of the injuries. 178 The evidence of the perianal injuries is circumstantially supportive of the account of the complainant when considered in conjunction with all of the evidence, in that the accused penetrated his anus with his penis. Assessment of the complainant’s credibility and reliability 179 Whilst there was nothing in the demeanour of the complainant in the course of examination-in-chief or cross-examination which caused me any concern about his credibility or reliability, it is vital that demeanour and presentation not be given undue weight in an assessment of honesty and reliability. Any determination of those issues can only be made having regard to the whole of the evidence, the criticisms raised by defence in the course of the trial and whether there is support for [LM]’s evidence. Whilst I do not have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the reliability and credibility of every aspect of the complainant’s evidence, it is trite to say that the prosecution case stands or falls on an acceptance of his evidence as to whether the alleged rape took place, beyond reasonable doubt.185 180 Particular care and scrutiny must be applied to an assessment of the complainant’s evidence.186 Description of incident by complainant 181 The evidence of the complainant as to the incident itself was clear and concise: A He was still across on the other side of the lounge room on his armchair. 185 Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193 [57]. 186 Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12. -- 41 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 40 Q When you awoke, where was he. A He was behind me, with himself inside of me. Q When you say that [T, D] was inside of you what do you mean. A Well he had his, both of his hands around my waist, thrusting back and forward. Q What was he thrusting back and forward. A He was inside of me, inside of my rectum, having sexual intercourse with me. Q What was inside your rectum. A Penis. Q You say his penis you are referring to. A Yes. Q To whom. A To [T, D]. Q What was he doing with his penis. A Moving back and forward. Q In your evidence just earlier you referred to being in pain, can you explain what you meant. A Felt like my bum was going to explode, I could feel like a sharp pain in my stomach all the way to my belly button. Q For how long was [T, D] inserting his penis into your anus. A I don't know before prior but when I woke up it would probably maybe be about 30 seconds to maybe even a minute. Q You've given evidence that initially you thought it might have been a dream. A Yes. Q When you realised what was happening what did you do. A I ended up pushing him off of me, well, pulling my pants up, pushing him off of me and striking him, sort of all in one motion. Q What do you mean by 'striking him'. A I swung around and hit him with a closed fist. Q Where did you hit him. A In the face. -- 42 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 41 Q Where in the face. A I'm guessing around near his eyes and his forehead (INDICATES). HIS HONOUR: Let's get down for the transcript, Mr Plummer. Witness indicates region of around right eye; would you agree with that counsel? XN Q Is that correct. A Yes.187 182 Under cross-examination, the following was put to the complainant about the alleged rape: Q And you fell asleep on the couch before I think you said the midnight news came on. A Yes. Q Then you awoke to pain. When that happened, were you still lying on the couch or were you standing. A I was still lying on the lounge. Q And in the first statement you said to police as this was occurring, you stated as you were waking up you weren't sure what was happening and you were thinking it could have been a dream. A Yes. Q You also said in evidence that you have vivid dreams. A Yes. Q So, if I was to say to you this whole incident was a result of a dream, would you agree with that. A Definitely not, I've got scars to prove it isn't.188 183 In my view, the complainant was unshaken in cross-examination. His descriptions of the events on the night in question were consistent and he rejected any suggestion that the incident was a product of his imagination. His credibility and reliability remained intact. Conclusion 184 The prosecution case relies upon an acceptance of the evidence of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. 187 T46.27-T47.37. 188 T88.2-17. -- 43 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 42 185 The evidence of the complainant relating to his withholding of the suggested ‘confession’, Exhibit P1, is strange. The complainant candidly accepted that he did not disclose this potentially very important information to the police. The explanation as to why the document was not disclosed to police was the subject of cross-examination and submissions. 186 The complainant explained that he would from time to time have the accused acknowledge his poor behaviour in writing. 187 The complainant explained that he was fearful of the document going missing and generally had a naivety as to the intricacies of the legal system. He was worried about the document being misplaced. 188 Noting these obvious curiosities, the fact remains that there is strong support for the conclusion to be drawn that the accused signed Exhibit P1 in the circumstances described by the complainant. I find that the accused signed Exhibit P1 in the circumstances described by the complainant. This is a piece of circumstantial evidence that, when considered in conjunction with other items of circumstantial evidence, is capable of supporting the version of the complainant. It is circumstantially probative evidence that the complainant confronted the accused the day after the alleged rape and a conversation took place regarding what the complainant alleged had occurred the night before. The accused did not deny the allegations put to him. 189 The accused agreed he had ‘done what he had done’.189 I find that in all of the circumstances this was an implied admission on the part of the accused to engaging in the charged conduct. There is no other reasonably possible explanation for his response. 190 Exhibit P1 and circumstances surrounding the creation of this document has assumed prominence in this case. I have found that Exhibit P1 does not constitute an admission to the charged conduct of itself capable of proving the charged offence. The Crown does not suggest otherwise. However, the circumstances in which the document was brought into existence, more specifically, the conversation that took place between the accused and the complainant at the kitchen table at that time, is certainly of relevance. 191 In De Virgilio v The King,190 the Court of Appeal recently considered the issue of post-offence conduct in the context of a jury trial involving text messages sent by an accused to a witness, which on the Crown case, were alleged to constitute admissions to the charged offending as a separate mode of proving guilt. Of course, the prosecution here has disavowed reliance on the document and surrounding conversation as an admission as a separate mode of proving guilt, but rather as an admission supportive of the complainant’s account. 189 T53.17. 190 [2026] SASCA 16. -- 44 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 43 192 In De Virgilio v The King, Livesey P and Stanley JA stated:191 Thirdly and finally, and relatedly, because the appellant’s text responses necessarily took their colour and meaning from other evidence in the case, particularly the complainant’s evidence, any admission operated in a manner similar to an implied admission. An implied admission is an example of post-offence conduct. The admission was implied because whether the appellant’s apology and admitted error of judgment related to the complainant’s allegation of criminal offending was never made express. It could only be inferred having regard to other evidence in the case. That is to say, it was implicit that the appellant was referring to the complainant’s allegations only if the jury had regard to the complainant’s account. The use of any admission was as evidence supportive of the complainant’s account, and not in substitution for it as a mode of proving guilt. 193 In my view, Exhibit P1 and the surrounding conversation that took place at the time the document was brought into existence should be admitted as evidence supportive of the complainant’s account. 194 In addition, the medical evidence of injuries to the anal region of the complainant provides support for the evidence of the complainant as the injuries are consistent with anal penetration. The injuries are consistent with blunt force trauma, which is consistent with a penis penetrating the anus of the complainant. 195 Further, the complainant’s disclosure to [LB] the following day, ‘[the accused] raped me and [that] I hit him’ demonstrates consistency of conduct on the part of the complainant. 196 As previously stated, the prosecution case relies on an acceptance of the credibility and reliability of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. In assessment the evidence of the complainant, I have regard to all of the evidence and the submissions of counsel. 197 The defence hypothesis that the allegations are a figment of the complainant’s imagination must be rejected as not being a reasonably possible explanation for the complainant’s evidence. The fundamental premise upon which this hypothesis was advanced, namely methylamphetamine induced psychosis, is not supported by the evidence, in that there is no evidence that the complainant consumed methylamphetamine on the day and night of the alleged incident. Any such suggestion of methylamphetamine consumption was rejected by the complainant. The defence expert, Professor Mangoni, also stated that the species of hallucination said to have taken place as alleged, was very uncommon. 198 Taking into account the whole of the evidence, hallucination or detachment from reality is not a reasonably possible explanation for the complainant’s allegations. 199 The evidence of the complainant was compelling. The core features of his evidence remained intact after cross-examination. His evidence is supported 191 Ibid at [82]. -- 45 of 46 -- [2026] SADC 24 44 circumstantially by Exhibit P1 and the conversation that took place at the time it was brought into existence, together with the medical evidence of the injuries to his anus. 200 Having regard to all of the evidence, I find beyond reasonable doubt that the accused penetrated the anus of the complainant with his penis whilst the complainant was asleep and incapable of consenting. There is no doubt that the accused knew that the complainant did not consent to that act of penetration. 201 In this case, the prosecution case is based upon both direct and circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant awakening to the accused penetrating his anus with his penis. This testimony is circumstantially supported on the prosecution case by other evidence in the form of implied admissions and medical evidence. 202 Notwithstanding the hybrid case (direct and circumstantial) presented by the prosecution, I would accept the evidence of the complainant as to the act giving rise to the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt, absent the supporting circumstantial evidence. The stand alone evidence of the complainant as to the act of anal penetration in circumstances of being asleep at the time of that penetration proves each element of the charged offence of itself. Verdict 203 I find the accused guilty. -- 46 of 46 --